get_insight

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying exactly what is returned ('insight metadata only') and what is not (individual resources). This is sufficient behavioral context beyond 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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose, then adds usage exclusions. Every part earns its place with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 that the tool has no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields (savings, risk counts, status, description). It also clarifies the scope (single insight, no resources). This is complete for the agent to understand what the tool provides and what it does not.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (key and source) with their meanings and examples. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to elaborate. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns details and aggregate summary of a single optimization insight identified by source and key, explicitly naming the fields (savings, risk counts, status, description). It distinguishes itself from get_insight_resources and list_optimization_recommendations, providing clear differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'when the user wants the details and aggregate summary of a single optimization insight'. It also provides explicit exclusions: 'does NOT include the individual affected resources (use get_insight_resources for those) and is not for listing all insights (use list_optimization_recommendations)'. This gives clear guidance on alternatives.

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