get_r_report_queries_application_vulnerabilities_by_os

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states HTTP method GET and the action 'Retrieve', indicating a read operation. However, it doesn't discuss authentication, rate limits, or any response-side side effects, though for a GET these are minor.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence and gets to the point quickly. The phrasing 'Retrieve records Calls' is slightly awkward (likely a missing period), but it remains concise and front-loaded with the purpose before the endpoint.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, covering return values, but the description doesn't explain the record set, required route IDs, available filters, or pagination syntax. For a tool with generic object schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to enable correct invocation without external knowledge.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the role of each container (path_params, query, headers), which helps an agent populate them. But it doesn't specify actual parameter names, types, or what filters are valid, leaving significant ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the action ('Retrieve records') and the specific endpoint path, making it clear this fetches application vulnerability data grouped by OS. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the 'by_os' suffix in the endpoint distinguishes it from related report queries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides invocation mechanics (where to put path_params, query, headers) but no guidance on when to choose this tool over related alternatives like application_vulnerabilities_by_product or suppressed variants. No exclusions or conditions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.