ise_dc_view_radius_authentications_week

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'performance oriented view' which hints at efficiency, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, whether results are capped, or what happens with large result sets. The reference to 'last seven days' is the only behavioral detail, which is a thin disclosure.

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 single sentence plus a column enumeration, which is reasonably compact. But it front-loads the report label and then crams the entire column list into one run-on phrase. The structural organization is adequate but could be cleaner with bulleted columns or clearer sentence boundaries.

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?

This is a moderately complex query tool with 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema. The description and schema together are sufficient for an agent to invoke it with reasonable parameters, but the description is thin on behavioral context (pagination, performance limits, result semantics). Given the sibling set includes a nearly identical non-weekly view, more explicit differentiation would help. Adequate but not 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 100%, so all 7 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds the list of filterable columns (ID, TIMESTAMP_TIMEZONE, ISE_NODE, etc.) which helps the agent know valid filter_column values. But the description doesn't go beyond the schema much; the column list is the main added value. 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 this is a report view containing RADIUS authentication records for the last seven days, and enumerates the filterable columns. The '[Report]' prefix and the 'week' in the name effectively communicate the time scope. However, it doesn't strongly distinguish from siblings like ise_dc_view_radius_authentications (the non-weekly version) beyond the time window.

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 tells the agent it's a performance-oriented view for the last seven days, which implies temporal use. But it doesn't explicitly say when to choose this over the non-weekly ise_dc_view_radius_authentications or the summary view sibling, nor does it state exclusions or alternatives. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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