get_r_report_queries_application_vulnerabilities_v2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Retrieve records' and the HTTP call, which implies it is a read operation. It does not mention pagination limits, required filter format, error behavior, or any data scoping. With zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and endpoint. It wastes no words and is easy to parse. It could be longer to include more context, but for what it covers it is appropriately sized.

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?

Given the large number of closely related sibling tools, the description is under-equipped for selecting the right one. It does not state what 'application_vulnerabilities_v2' specifically returns, when to prefer it over the _tag or _suppressed variants, or any behavioral constraints. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the lack of usage guidance and parameter specifics leaves the tool under-specified.

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 is entirely generic with no per-parameter descriptions or enums (0% schema description coverage). The description adds some value by clarifying that path_params should contain route IDs)Skip', query holds filters and pagination, and headers holds request headersSkip the 'filters and pagination in query' and 'route IDs in path_params' are helpful, but the exact format of these is still unspecified. It partially compensates for the schema's lack of information but doesn't fully specify parameter semantics.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Retrieve records' via a specific endpoint. However, it doesn't differentiate from the many similar sibling tools like the non-v2 version, _tag, _suppressed, and _by_product variants. An agent knows what endpoint it calls but not the unique purpose of this specific report.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the dozens of sibling report query tools. The instruction to place route IDs, filters, and headers is parameter handling, not usage context. An agent gets no help deciding between this and get_r_report_queries_application_vulnerabilities or its many variants.

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