get_r_report_queries_external_asset_vulnerabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a GET call, implying a read-only operation, and it mentions pagination in query parameters. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, response behavior, or any quirks of the endpoint, which would be valuable for this generic wrapper.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The endpoint is stated first, and the parameter-placement guidance is immediately actionable. Grammar is slightly awkward ('Retrieve records Calls') but this does not hurt usability.

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 tool is a thin HTTP wrapper with generic open parameters and no annotations, so the description needs to carry more weight. It supplies the endpoint and where to place route IDs, filters, pagination, and headers, but it omits concrete parameter names, required header identities, and any sibling-selection context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 0% description coverage and only generic object properties, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It usefully maps path_params to route IDs, query to filters and pagination, and headers to required request headers. It falls short of a 5 because it does not name the specific route IDs, filter keys, or headers, and it is silent on the body parameter.

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 gives a clear verb ('Retrieve') and an explicit endpoint ('GET /r/report_queries/external_asset_vulnerabilities'), so an agent can tell this is the external-asset-vulnerability report query tool. However, 'records' is generic and the description does not explain what these records represent or how this differs from the many similar report-query siblings.

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 explains how to distribute request data across path_params, query, and headers, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the dozens of related report-query tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use is only implied by the endpoint name.

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