get_r_report_queries_vulnerabilities_details_suppressed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'Retrieve records', implying a read operation, but offers no details on authentication, rate limits, side effects, or response processing. This is minimalist and fails to convey any non-obvious behavioral traits.

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, so it is concise and front-loaded with the key verb and endpoint. However, the phrasing 'Retrieve records Calls `GET ...`' is grammatically awkward and could be smoother. Despite this, it is efficient and to the point without unnecessary fluff.

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 provides the minimal information needed to call a REST endpoint: it identifies the endpoint and tells where to place each parameter. An output schema exists, so return values are not its responsibility. But it omits meaningful context such as what 'suppressed' means, what filters are available, and any pagination defaults, which would help an agent use it correctly. It is adequate but not complete.

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 schema has no descriptions for any parameters, so the description must compensate. It does provide some semantic guidance by mapping path_params to route IDs, query to filters and pagination, and headers to request headers. However, it does not specify what filters or pagination parameters exist, leaving room for ambiguity. This is a moderate improvement over the bare schema.

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 the exact endpoint, which indicates it retrieves records for suppressed vulnerability details. It distinguishes from siblings like get_r_report_queries_vulnerabilities_details by including 'suppressed', though it does not explain what 'suppressed' means. This is clear enough for an agent to infer its purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., get_r_report_queries_vulnerabilities_details, get_r_report_queries_application_vulnerabilities_suppressed). It only says to provide parameters, with no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion criteria.

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