lookup_user_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the domain (authentication events) and the result domain (Passed/Failed), which is useful. It says nothing about permissions, retention windows, pagination, or why limit/since_minutes exist, leaving notable gaps.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the domain statement is front-loaded and the two query modes follow immediately. Slightly terse rather than wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be explained. Still, with zero required params and 0% schema coverage, ambiguity about default behavior and the unmentioned limit/since_minutes params leaves the definition short of 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 0%, so the description must compensate for all five params. It adds real meaning for endpoint_ip, user_name, and the result value set (Passed/Failed), but omits limit and since_minutes entirely, so two parameters remain undocumented anywhere.

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?

States the resource domain (Cisco ISE authentication events) and the two lookup modes precisely: endpoint_ip -> user, user_name -> endpoints. An agent can grasp what it returns without opening the schema. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like search_onprem_device_logs, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Gives implied usage guidance by explaining which parameter selects which query path (endpoint_ip vs user_name), which is genuinely helpful. However there is no statement of when to prefer this over the other search/trace siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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