ise_dc_view_radius_authentications

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 lists filterable columns but does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, what the return format looks like, pagination behavior, or the max limit constraint (though 'limit' schema notes max 10000). For a report/query tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral context would be expected.

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 compact — a single sentence stating purpose and then a list of filterable columns. It's efficient and doesn't waste words. Could arguably be more structured (e.g., front-loading limit behavior), but as written it's appropriately sized and readable.

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 report-view query tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and filterable columns. However, it lacks information about default behavior (e.g., what happens with no filters), the sort column default, and doesn't explain how filter_value/filter_column/filter_op interact together — though those are in schema. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a 7-parameter report 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 description coverage is 100%, so all 7 parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The main description adds the list of filterable columns (ORIG_CALLING_STATION_ID, CHECKSUM, TIMESTAMP, etc.), which maps meaningfully to filter_column usage. However, it doesn't add much beyond this — the schema already covers limit, order_by, deployment, and filter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states '[Report] RADIUS Authentications: This provides details of all the radius authentication records' with a clear verb (provides details) and resource (radius authentication records). It distinguishes from siblings like ise_dc_view_radius_authentications_week (weekly variant) and ise_dc_view_radius_authentication_summary (summary variant), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 this is the 'all records' report variant among several radius authentication tools, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs the _week or _summary siblings. The deployment parameter hints at multi-deployment handling ('Omit to use the only/default deployment'), but the main description body offers no clear guidance on when this tool is preferred over alternatives.

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