ise_dc_view_radius_authentication_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It properly labels the tool as a read-only '[Report]' and indicates the 'aggregate view' nature. However, it doesn't disclose what 'aggregate' means in terms of grouping/behavior, whether results are limited, or pagination/return behavior. The report classification and aggregate characterization give moderate transparency.

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 identifies the tool type ([Report]), its purpose, and lists filterable columns. It's front-loaded with the verb phrase and report categorization. No wasted words, though the column enumeration is somewhat lengthy.

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 filtered-report tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It explains the purpose, available columns, and implicitly the filtering capability via the listed columns. However, it doesn't describe the output/return format, what the 'aggregate' grouping looks like, or how this relates to the sibling weekly/non-summary RADIUS view tools. The 7 parameters are well-documented in schema, which compensates partially.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond listing filterable columns, but the schema fully describes all 7 parameters (limit, order_by, days_back, filter_op, deployment, filter_value, filter_column). The deployment parameter description is notably rich, explaining name/slug/number formats and pointing to ise_list_deployments.

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 the tool displays an aggregate view of RADIUS authentications and lists the filterable columns. It's marked as a [Report], distinguishing it as a read-only aggregate view. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ise_dc_view_radius_authentications by indicating this is a 'summary' aggregate, though it could more explicitly contrast with the non-summary RADIUS views.

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 RADIUS authentication summaries with filtering, but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like ise_dc_view_radius_authentications, ise_dc_view_radius_authentications_week, or ise_openapi_radius_authentication_list. The 'aggregate view' phrasing hints at distinction but doesn't name alternatives or exclusions explicitly.

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