get_r_report_queries_external_asset_ssl_attack

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention side effects (though likely read-only), required authentication or permissions, rate limits, or any caveats about the data returned. The description only states the HTTP method and parameter placement, which is low-level protocol detail rather than behavioral context an agent needs (e.g., does it return a paginated list, are there default filters?).

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 concise sentence with a clear structure: what the tool does, then exactly where to place each argument type. It front-loads the action and ends with actionable instructions. It wastes no words, though the phrase 'and any required request headers in headers' is slightly repetitive but acceptable.

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's complexity (4 parameters, all optional, generic objects, no enums, 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the purpose of the report (what 'external asset SSL attack' refers to), what filters are available, what the response looks like, or any constraints. The output schema exists but isn't described in the definition. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional context from the endpoint's API docs.

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 does provide high-level guidance on what each parameter group is for (path_params for route IDs, query for filters/pagination, headers for request headers, body unused), which adds some value beyond the schema's generic property names. However, it doesn't list specific filter names or pagination parameter syntax, and there's no detail on required vs optional fields beyond the schema's default nulls. Given the low coverage, this is a baseline 3 but not higher because it lacks concrete 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 ('Retrieve records') and a specific resource ('external asset SSL attack' report query), and the tool name and description align. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from the many other report_queries siblings (e.g., 'external_asset_ssl_ciphers', 'external_asset_vulnerabilities'), and the phrase 'Retrieve records' is generic. The description is more of a protocol reminder than a domain-specific purpose statement.

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 says 'Provide route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and any required request headers in headers,' which gives generic guidance on where to put parameters, but it doesn't say when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't explain what 'external asset SSL attack' means or when an agent would choose this over other SSL-related report queries (e.g., ssl_ciphers). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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