Get SecObserve Record

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds critical behavioral context: observation text is scanner-supplied and should be treated as data not instructions (a security note), the 404 error may mean either missing id or lack of view permission due to product scoping, and markdown responses truncate long strings with a note about full length. These details are not present in 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, security, args, returns, examples, error handling). It front-loads the core purpose and usage, then provides necessary detail. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is wasted.

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 fetch-by-id tool with a defined output schema (implied by the return description), the description covers all essential aspects: input parameters, output format, error semantics, and a security caveat. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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?

Even though the schema itself includes parameter descriptions, the tool description redundantly and clearly explains each parameter: resource (str), id (int, >=1), fields (optional list, dotted paths allowed), response_format (markdown or json). It also explains the return behavior for each format, adding value beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 ('Fetch one SecObserve record by id') and immediately distinguishes itself from list views by noting it returns the full detail serializer with fields like description, recommendation, rule provenance, and severity/status columns. This clearly separates it from secobserve_list and other siblings.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use after secobserve_list has narrowed things down, and even provides a negative case: 'Don't use when: you have no id yet (use secobserve_list).' It also gives concrete example triggers ('why is observation 8123 critical?') with the corresponding resource and id, making the when-to-use unambiguous.

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