DLP USB printers 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 details: it returns results 'by device instance path', includes custom group counts, and supports pagination. These details help the agent understand the output shape and the need to page through results. It does not describe default page size or error conditions, but that is not expected given schema coverage.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states the resource and output composition, the second notes pagination. There is no redundant or vague language.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the return content ('USB printers... with the number of custom groups') and pagination support. The lack of an explicit 'use this for USB, not network printers' note is a slight gap, but the name and description make that clear enough.

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%: all three parameters (raw, page, pageLimit) have descriptions. The tool description adds 'Supports pagination', which reinforces the purpose of page/pageLimit but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline for high 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 USB printers deployed in DLP policies (by device instance path), with the number of custom groups each USB printer is associated with.' The verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'USB printers deployed in DLP policies' are specific. The parenthetical 'by device instance path' adds granularity, and the mention of custom group counts distinguishes it from sibling DLP reports (e.g., dlp_network_printer_report).

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 for when to use the tool: when you need USB printers in DLP policies with custom group association counts. It supports pagination, which signals how to handle large result sets. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like dlp_network_printer_report, relying on the name and title for differentiation. This is a minor gap.

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