get_r_report_queries_vulnerabilities_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and that it retrieves records, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only (though GET implies it), whether authentication is required, what the response shape is, or any rate limits or side effects. The description is minimal and leaves the agent to infer behavior from the endpoint name.

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 and is concise. It front-loads the action and endpoint, then maps the generic schema fields to their intended contents. However, it is terse to the point of omitting useful context, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 has an output schema but no parameter details, no annotations, and a large sibling set, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of the returned count, the required route ID format, or how this endpoint relates to other vulnerability count/report tools. An agent would struggle to know what to pass in path_params and query without additional documentation.

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%, and the schema parameters are generic (body, query, headers, path_params) with no property details. The description adds only that path_params should contain route IDs, query should contain filters and pagination, and headers should contain required request headers. It does not specify which route IDs, what filter keys are supported, or what pagination parameters (page, size, limit) are expected. This is insufficient for an agent to construct a correct request.

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 specific verb ('Retrieve records') and resource ('GET /r/report_queries/vulnerabilities_count'), which clearly identifies the endpoint. However, it does not explain what 'vulnerabilities_count' semantically represents (e.g., a count of vulnerabilities per route/company), and the name itself is somewhat self-explanatory. It distinguishes from siblings only by the endpoint path, not by functional differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling report-query tools. It only says to provide route IDs, filters, pagination, and headers, but does not explain what filters are valid, what route IDs mean, or when this count endpoint is preferred over other vulnerability-related endpoints like get_r_report_queries_vulnerabilities_details or get_r_report_queries_asset_wise_vulnerabilities.

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