get_r_report_queries_vulnerabilities_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieve records' and gives the HTTP method/endpoint, but does not disclose return shape, pagination behavior, required auth, rate limits, or any side effects. For a GET endpoint this is modest, but for a tool with no annotations, more transparency (e.g., response format, default page size) would be expected.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the action and endpoint, then maps the generic schema containers to HTTP request parts. It avoids unnecessary words, but it omits essential parameter detail, so conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 4 generic parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves too much unspecified. An agent cannot tell what route IDs are expected, what filters/pagination parameters are accepted, what the body is for, or what data the response contains. The presence of an output schema and many sibling tools only partially mitigates this; the description itself is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 has only generic `anyOf` object/string containers with no property definitions. The description compensates only slightly by mapping the generic containers to HTTP concepts: path_params for route IDs, query for filters/pagination, headers for request headers. It does not explain what specific route IDs are valid, what filters are available, or what the body parameter means (it remains entirely undocumented).

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 endpoint path (`GET /r/report_queries/vulnerabilities_details`) and the action of retrieving records, which clearly indicates a read operation for vulnerability details. It is somewhat distinguishable from siblings like `get_r_report_queries_vulnerabilities_details_suppressed` and `get_r_report_queries_vulnerabilities_count`, though it doesn't explicitly compare itself to them. The title is null and the name is long, but the endpoint reference adds clarity.

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 conveys that route IDs go in path_params, filters/pagination in query, and headers in headers, which gives some usage structure. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over the many sibling report-query tools, nor does it mention any required filters or context. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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