get_r_report_queries_external_asset_externalscan

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state that the tool makes a GET request and retrieves records, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any specifics about the data returned, potential limitations, or whether authentication is required. For a read operation, this is minimal but acceptable; it could be richer.

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 long, front-loads the primary action and endpoint, and packs parameter guidance into the second sentence. There is a minor grammatical issue ('Retrieve records Calls' should likely be 'Retrieve records. Calls...'), but overall it is efficient and to the point with no extraneous content.

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 tool is one of dozens of similarly named report query endpoints, the description lacks the context needed to decide when to use it. It does not explain what 'external asset externalscan' records are, nor how this differs from siblings like get_r_report_queries_external_asset_ports_data or get_r_report_queries_external_asset_vulnerabilities. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the conceptual purpose and selection criteria are missing.

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 input schema has zero descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does provide semantic roles for three of the four parameters: 'route IDs' for path_params, 'filters and pagination' for query, and 'headers' for request headers. However, it does not mention the 'body' parameter at all, and it gives no details about what specific filters or pagination options exist. The description adds some meaning but leaves significant gaps.

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 begins with 'Retrieve records,' which clearly states the action (retrieve) and resource (records). It then gives the exact HTTP endpoint, which unambiguously identifies the operation. However, it does not explain what 'external_asset_externalscan' refers to, leaving the semantic meaning of the resource vague to an agent unfamiliar with the domain. Still, the verb and endpoint make the purpose reasonably clear.

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 guidance ('route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and any required request headers in headers') but provides no context on when to choose this tool over the many sibling report query tools. There is no mention of the intended use case, prerequisites, or alternatives, so an agent cannot determine when this specific endpoint is appropriate.

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