get_security_posture

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds a real access constraint (Personal edition) that annotations do not convey and that could otherwise cause a failed call. It says nothing about the response shape or what happens when the edition requirement is unmet (error vs. empty result).

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste: the capability and its two modes come first, then the edition prerequisite. Nothing is buried or repeated.

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 zero-required-param read tool with full schema coverage and readOnly annotations, this covers scope and access requirements adequately. The remaining gap is that 'posture score' is never characterized (single number? per-category breakdown?), and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already explains that container_id is an internal ID omitted for global posture, and the description restates that same distinction. No additional syntax, format, or lookup guidance is provided beyond the structured fields, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the infrastructure security posture score') and clarifies the two scopes: global infrastructure vs. a single container. It never distinguishes itself from nearby-sounding siblings such as get_security_insights or list_risk_scores, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 edition prerequisite ('Requires the Personal edition') is a genuinely useful gating condition, and omitting container_id implies the global scope. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_security_insights, list_risk_scores, or list_cve, which all touch adjacent security data.

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