DLP enterprise applications report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by noting that pagination is supported and that the tool retrieves 'all' applications, implying potentially large datasets. It does not detail return format or edge cases, but with annotations present, this is moderate-to-good 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 two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the primary purpose and data scope, the second adds the pagination detail. Both sentences earn their place, making it concise and well-structured.

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 simple read-only list report with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the data returned (enterprise applications, custom group counts), the scope (across the network), and pagination support. Given the low complexity and clear annotations, no additional detail seems necessary.

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 three parameters (raw, page, pageLimit) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning pagination, which aligns with the page/pageLimit parameters. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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's function: 'Retrieves all enterprise applications deployed in DLP policies across the network, with the number of custom groups each application is associated with.' This uses a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('enterprise applications deployed in DLP policies'), and it distinguishes this from its siblings (e.g., dlp_network_device_report, dlp_network_email_report) by the unique focus on applications.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for obtaining enterprise applications in DLP policies and their custom group counts. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, the scope is unambiguous, and the sibling list confirms this is one of several specialized DLP reports. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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