get_account_insight_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the result contains affected resources and details, which is meaningful for a read tool, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or error behavior when an unknown issue ID is supplied.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence with the operation and the unique key front-loaded; no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter read with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives an adequate account of what is returned (affected resources and details). It could go slightly further, but nothing critical for calling it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (account_id, issue_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the linkage that issue_id identifies the insight within the account; the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb (Get) and resource (context for a Security Center insight) and clarifies what 'context' means (affected resources and details). It distinguishes itself from list-style siblings by specifying retrieval by issue ID, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 phrase 'for a specific Security Center insight ... by issue ID' implies the precondition (you already have the issue ID) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives among the many sibling insight tools.

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