get_aws_recommendation

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful output-scope context ('full detail ... including analysis metrics') but does not describe auth requirements, tenant scoping beyond customerContext, pagination, or data availability concerns.

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 short: two sentences and no redundant wording. The second sentence is specific and actionable. The first sentence adds product/brand context but includes tangential terms like 'planned purchases' that are not directly relevant to this single-recommendation getter, preventing a perfect score.

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 no output schema and low schema parameter documentation, the description should provide more guidance about the return payload, how a recommendation is identified, and how this relates to siblings such as list_aws_recommendations. The statement about 'analysis metrics' is vague and does not give an agent enough context to confidently invoke the tool and interpret results.

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 only 20%, and the description does not compensate. It does not explain the required managementAccountId or serviceId parameters, nor the optional granularity parameter. Only customerContext is described in the schema; the rest of the parameters are effectively unexplained.

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: 'Returns full detail for a single recommendation including analysis metrics.' It distinguishes itself from list-style siblings like list_aws_recommendations by emphasizing a single recommendation and full detail. However, the opening phrase 'commitment inventory, recommendations, and planned purchases' is broad and somewhat obscures the tool's singular purpose.

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 this tool is for retrieving detailed information about one specific recommendation, which is useful after enumeration. It does not explicitly say when to use this versus list_aws_recommendations, get_commitment, or list_aws_planned_purchases, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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