Api policies analytics retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the output is aggregated, without saying what metrics, over what time window, or how the "filtered queryset" is determined given there are no parameters.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness works against it because the one clause it contains introduces the resource ambiguity rather than resolving it.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must carry the meaning of the returned analytics, and it does not say what the aggregates contain or what the implicit filtering scope is. It gives the bare minimum to call the tool but not enough to know whether the result is appropriate.

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?

With zero parameters there is nothing to disambiguate, so the baseline applies. The one caveat is the phrase "filtered queryset", which implies filtering while no filter parameters exist, but this does not materially mislead parameter usage.

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?

It names an aggregation operation and a source, but the source it names ("applied-controls queryset") does not match the resource implied by the tool name (policies). That mismatch leaves the agent unsure whether this aggregates policies or applied controls, even though the aggregation nature itself is clear.

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 to use this over alternatives, even though a direct sibling (ciso_assistant_api_applied_controls_analytics_retrieve) plausibly covers the same aggregation for a different resource, and policies_retrieve/policies_list cover raw policy data. The agent is left to infer the selection criteria.

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