esetprotect_list_detections_v2

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 only says what the tool lists, not how it behaves: no mention of pagination, filtering semantics, time bounds, or whether it returns combined or separate result sets. The 'v2' label hints at a different scope but doesn't explain behavioral traits.

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 short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds a scoping parenthetical. It's efficient and readable, though the parenthetical could have been more informative about the v2 distinction.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain pagination, time filtering, and the meaning of cloudOfficeTenantUuid. It doesn't. The v2 scope note helps, but an agent would still be guessing about how to use the parameters and what the response looks like.

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 40% (startTime and endTime are described). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the two time parameters are already documented. The remaining three parameters (pageSize, pageToken, cloudOfficeTenantUuid) are undocumented in both schema and description, so the description doesn't compensate for the gap.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('detections'), and the parenthetical 'v2 - covers endpoint, cloud office, and EDR detections' distinguishes it from the sibling esetprotect_list_detections. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or contrast the exact scope difference, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 v2 endpoint covering more detection types, which gives some context for when to use it over the v1 list. But it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this vs esetprotect_list_detections or esetprotect_get_detection_v2, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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