get_r_report_queries_asset_wise_vulnerabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, but it only states that the tool calls a GET endpoint to retrieve records. It does not disclose whether authentication is needed, what side effects (likely none), or any pagination/rate limiting behavior. The information is minimal and does not add context beyond what the endpoint name implies.

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 with no waste, front-loading the action ('Retrieve records') and the endpoint. It is efficiently structured, though it could arguably be slightly more informative within the same length.

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?

For a tool with no annotations)Skip , an output schema (present but not detailed), and four generic parameters, the description leaves significant gaps: no usage scenarios, no differentiation from similar report query tools, and no concrete parameter details. It is enough to initiate a call but not to confidently select or fully parameterize the tool 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 adds some meaning by indicating that path_params hold route IDs, query holds filters and pagination, and headers hold required request headers. However, it does not specify concrete parameter names, formats, or which route IDs are required, leaving the agent with only generic guidance.

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 ('Retrieve records') and the specific resource ('asset_wise_vulnerabilities') via the endpoint path. It is not a mere restatement of the name)Skip but does not explicitly differentiate it from other report query tools, relying on the name to convey uniqueness.

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 many sibling get_r_report_queries_* tools. The description only instructs how to place parameters ('Provide route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query'), which is more about parameter structure than selection criteria. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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