defender_get_recommendation_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the implied read operation, such as error behavior, null handling, or response shape, so it does not add value beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise, with no filler or redundant wording. It is front-loaded and readable, though it borders on under-specification due to the absence of any usage context.

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 one-parameter, read-only getter with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the core action and resource. However, it lacks any context about alternatives or edge behaviors, which leaves the agent to infer the full selection logic from sibling names.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter recommendation_id, so the baseline is 3. The description 'Get one security recommendation' provides no additional semantic detail about the parameter, but none is required beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('security recommendation'), with 'one' distinguishing it from the plural list tool defender_get_recommendations. It does not explicitly mention 'by ID' in the prose, but the tool name and recommendation_id parameter make the intent unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as defender_get_recommendations, defender_get_recommendation_machines, or defender_get_recommendation_vulnerabilities. No exclusion criteria or routing hints are provided.

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