Api perimeters quality check retrieve 2

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the purpose - it doesn't say what the quality check evaluates, whether the ID must reference an existing perimeter, or what errors occur for missing IDs. With annotations doing the safety work, a 2 reflects that the description contributes no additional behavioral context.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe the returned quality-check payload - it doesn't. Combined with zero parameter coverage and no differentiation from the sibling retrieve tool, an agent lacks information needed to call this correctly or interpret results.

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% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the description must compensate - and it does not. It never states that 'id' is the perimeter identifier, nor its format (UUID vs integer), even though that is the only input. This is a clear gap for a low-coverage 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 names a verb ("Returns") and a resource ("the quality check of the perimeter"), which is enough to know broadly what it does. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its near-identical sibling ciso_assistant_api_perimeters_quality_check_retrieve, and the trailing "_2" in the name gives no hint about what differs. An agent cannot tell which of the two to call from this text.

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?

There is no statement of when this tool should be used versus the sibling quality-check retrieve, other than the tool name. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives are mentioned. The agent is left to infer the distinction entirely.

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