get_r_report_queries_application_vulnerabilities_net_suppressed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieve records' and names the endpoint, implying a read operation but without details on pagination behavior, sorting, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure.

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, efficient in length. It front-loads the action and endpoint, then immediately explains parameter placement. No excess verbiage, though the sentence is slightly run-on but still clear.

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?

The description omits what the returned records contain, what 'net_suppressed' means in a domain context, and how this report query differs from the many closely named siblings such as application_vulnerabilities_suppressed. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description should at least clarify the scope of the report.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, but the description clarifies the roles of each parameter container: path_params for route IDs, query for filters and pagination, headers for request headers. This provides practical semantic value beyond the generic schema properties, significantly helping an agent construct a correct request.

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 tool 'Retrieve records' and points to a specific endpoint, which identifies the resource. However, it does not explain what these records represent; the meaning of 'net_suppressed' is not elaborated, and the description is too generic to distinguish it from sibling report-query tools with similar names.

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 gives parameter placement instructions ('Provide route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or any prerequisites. There is no mention of alternative report queries for different use cases.

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