application_get_research_details_by_id

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses that the operation retrieves data (read-only implied) and lists return fields. However, it does not mention if the call can fail, rate limits, or that it is non-destructive. The fact that it's a 'get' suggests read-only, but more explicit transparency would be beneficial.

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?

Two sentences, directly conveying purpose and use case without extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, description helpfully lists return fields (description, risks, mitigations). It covers the main use case. However, it does not explain error handling or what happens when no research exists. Considering low complexity, it is fairly 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?

Schema description coverage is 67%, with descriptions for organization_id and override_organization_id. The description adds no extra parameter-level info beyond schema. It implies application_id is the main identifier but does not elaborate on its usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Get Application Research Details by Id' and specifies that it retrieves ThreatLocker's research data (description, risks, mitigations). It distinguishes from sibling tools like application_get_by_id which returns general app info.

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?

Explicitly says 'Useful for decision support when the chosen matchingApplication or existingApplication is a sensitive built-in or unknown app.' It also marks the tool as 'Optional.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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