ise_dc_view_endpoints_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. However, it doesn't disclose key behavioral traits: pagination defaults, whether this is read-only (implied by 'Report' but not stated), the meaning of 'view's time column' for days_back, or the relationship between filter_column/filter_value/filter_op. For a read tool with no annotations, this is a notable gap.

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 front-loads the purpose and then lists filterable columns, which is useful. However, the column list is somewhat long and would be better placed in the filter_column/filter_value parameter descriptions rather than the main description. The format is compact but mixes report-purpose detail with schema-redundant column enumeration.

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 7 parameters, 0 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does the minimum viable job. It lists filterable columns and explains the report scope, but for a data-reporting tool it doesn't describe return structure, row count limits, or the deployment targeting semantics clearly-enough beyond what the schema says. It's adequate but not fully self-sufficient for a complex query tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all 7 parameters well with types, defaults, and descriptions. The description adds value by listing the actual filterable column names (ENDPOINT_POLICY_ID, MATCHED_POLICY_ID, etc.), which goes beyond what the schema's generic filter_column field conveys. This compensates well for otherwise generic parameters.

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 identifies this as a report tool for endpoint data collected by ISE, listing filterable columns. It distinguishes from siblings by the '[Report]' prefix and 'Endpoints Data' title, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the closely related ise_dc_view_registered_endpoints or ise_dc_view_profiled_endpoints_summary.

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 tool implies usage for querying endpoint data but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. the many DC view sibling tools (registered_endpoints, profiled_endpoints_summary, endpoint_identity_groups). The deployment parameter does reference calling ise_list_deployments, which is helpful context, but there's no 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.