get_r_report_queries_application_vulnerabilities_suppressed

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It correctly signals a read operation via 'Retrieve records' and suggests pagination through query parameters. It does not clarify what 'suppressed' means, whether results are filtered by default, or what response behavior to expect, but the GET nature is reasonably clear.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core action and endpoint in the first sentence. The second sentence earns its place by triaging arguments. Minor awkwardness in 'Retrieve records Calls' prevents a perfect structure score.

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 output schema exists, so return values may be covered elsewhere, but the input contract is not. For a tool with no annotations and zero schema coverage, the description should explain the 'suppressed' concept, specify route IDs, and list available filters/pagination parameters. It provides only generic HTTP-calling instructions that could apply to almost any endpoint.

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 for the generic object-typed parameters. It assigns roles: route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, and headers in headers. However, it never names concrete parameters, filter keys, pagination fields, or path param formats, leaving the agent to guess at the actual API contract.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve records') and names an exact resource via the endpoint, so an agent can tell this is a read operation for application vulnerabilities suppressed. However, it does not explain what 'suppressed' means or differentiate this from the many closely named application_vulnerabilities siblings, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 tells the agent where to place arguments (path_params, query, headers) but gives no guidance on when this tool should be used versus alternatives such as get_r_report_queries_application_vulnerabilities or the tag/net/by_product variants. With a large sibling family, the absence of any selection criteria is a significant gap.

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