device_full_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so safety is covered. The description contributes real behavioral context the annotations do not: each sub-section 'degrades gracefully if the tenant lacks a module,' warning the agent to expect partial results rather than a hard failure. It does not discuss latency/cost of the fan-out or how far back 'recent' extends.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents, then the usage trigger, then the degradation caveat. No filler and no repetition of the title or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the four returned sections and flags partial-result behavior, which is most of what an agent needs before calling. Gaps remain around what happens for an unknown UUID and the time window implied by 'recent' detections and scans.

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?

There is a single parameter (deviceUuid) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail about the identifier beyond what the schema states.

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 concrete composite action ('One call → device record + recent detections + vulnerabilities + recent scans') and enumerates exactly which sub-resources are bundled. That scope distinguishes it from single-resource siblings such as device_devices__get_device or latest_detections, which an agent can rule out when it wants everything at once.

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?

'Use when answering "what do you know about this machine"' gives a clear situational trigger that maps to a real agent intent. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming the cheaper single-purpose alternatives (get_device, latest_detections) that should be preferred when only one section is needed.

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