Get Detailed Advisor Recommendation Information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds transparency by listing the specific fields returned (impact, likelihood, remediation, KB articles), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 three sentences: purpose+contents, then a labeled call example. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Front-loaded with key information.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, clear purpose) and existence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context. It mentions key return fields and includes an example, which is sufficient.

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?

The schema description for rule_id (100% coverage) already states the format. The description provides an example value but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('Advisor Recommendation'), and enumerates specific information included (impact level, likelihood, remediation steps, related KB articles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_active_rules (list) and get_hosts_details_for_rule (hosts for a rule).

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 implies usage for retrieving details of a specific recommendation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings or any exclusions. The call example is helpful but does not serve as usage guidance.

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