Get Detailed System Information for Advisor Recommendation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that results are paginated, and does not disclose anything about permissions, result size limits, or what 'detailed' includes beyond the output schema. Some added value, but thin against the lower annotated bar.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding or restatement of the title. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly why the sibling ambiguity goes unresolved.

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 annotations, a full output schema, and 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to explain return values or parameters. The only meaningful gap is the unresolved overlap with the similarly named sibling tool.

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%, including rule_id format ('rule_name|ERROR_KEY') and the RHEL version validation note, so the schema carries the full parameter burden. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the baseline, which is the expected 3 when coverage is complete.

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 and resource ('Get paginated detailed information about systems affected by an Advisor Recommendation'), so the basic action is clear. However, it does nothing to separate itself from the near-identical sibling 'advisor__get_hosts_hitting_a_rule', leaving the agent unable to tell which of the two returns which data without opening both schemas.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative 'advisor__get_hosts_hitting_a_rule' that appears to overlap heavily. The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely on its own.

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