get_r_report_queries_suppress_vulnerability_problems

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the HTTP method is GET and uses the verb 'Retrieve', which strongly implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, does not mention authentication requirements (only 'any required request headers'), and provides no detail about pagination behavior or response handling beyond what the schema 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?

Two sentences, with the primary action stated first. The second sentence then provides a compact mapping of parameters to request parts. It is efficient and avoids verbosity, though the phrase 'Retrieve records Calls GET...' could be smoother.

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 description gives the HTTP method and basic parameter placement, and an output schema exists (which relieves the need to detail return values). It is incomplete in that it does not explain the meaning of 'suppress_vulnerability_problems', does not state if any route IDs are mandatory, and offers no examples or indication of which parameters are commonly used. For a simple GET it is minimally sufficient, but not comprehensive.

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 clarifies that path_params carry route IDs, query carries filters and pagination, and headers carry request headers, which adds meaning beyond the generic object schemas. However, it does not specify what route IDs are, what filters are available, or what pagination parameters to use, leaving significant ambiguity for a parameter-light but context-heavy endpoint.

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 ('suppress_vulnerability_problems'), and it names the exact endpoint for that resource. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the many similar report_queries tools, so an agent may not know why this endpoint is distinct.

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 provides parameter placement guidance ('Provide route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and any required request headers in headers') but gives no context about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_r_report_queries_suppressed_problems or other report query endpoints. There is no mention of suitable scenarios or exclusions.

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