ise_dc_view_radius_accounting_week

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'performance oriented view' which hints at behavior but doesn't disclose what data is excluded/included, whether rows are aggregated, pagination behavior, or performance characteristics. For a data-view tool with no annotations, more behavioral context is needed beyond a vague 'performance oriented' tag.

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 compact single sentence that conveys the report nature, time window, and filterable columns. It's reasonably front-loaded with the '[Report] RADIUS Accounting Week' tag. No wasted words, though the column list adds bulk that could arguably live in the schema.

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?

For a data-view query tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides a decent foundation: it names the report, states the 7-day window, and lists filterable columns. However, it doesn't explain return value shape/page size, distinguish from the non-week variant, or clarify time-based semantics (is 'week' rolling 7 days or calendar week). The complexity is moderate but the description leaves some gaps.

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 100%, so the schema documents all 7 parameters (limit, order_by, days_back, filter_op, deployment, filter_value, filter_column). The description lists the filterable columns which adds moderate value by informing which columns can be used with filter_column. However, the description doesn't explain column value formats (e.g., ACCT_STATUS_TYPE enum values, octet formats), so it doesn't go beyond the baseline.

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 this is a Report view containing RADIUS accounting records for the last seven days, with a specific verb ('[Report]') and resource (RADIUS Accounting Week view). It lists the filterable columns. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling ise_dc_view_radius_accounting (the non-weekly version), so there's some ambiguity about what 'week' adds beyond the sibling.

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 implies usage for viewing/querying RADIUS accounting records from the last 7 days, and the schema documents filter/order/limit params well. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over ise_dc_view_radius_accounting or the authentication views, nor does it state any exclusion criteria or alternatives.

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