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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds value by disclosing the return contents (description, key articles/controls, applicability, canonical URL) and the list of supported frameworks, giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect beyond the structured 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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and the supported list; the second lists return fields. Every word earns its place. The supported framework list is long but necessary for precision. No filler or redundancy.

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 lookup tool with one parameter, enums, and good annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the supported inputs. It also mentions a follow-up URL, which is a nice extra. No output schema exists, but the return contents are explicitly listed, making it complete.

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 fully documents the single parameter framework_id, including an enum of allowed values and a clear description. The tool description mentions 'by short id' but adds no new semantics about the parameter's format or usage beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Look up a compliance / regulatory framework by short id.' It specifies the exact resource (compliance/regulatory framework) and the method (by short id), and lists the supported frameworks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_runbook_templates or dora_readiness_assessment, which focus on other aspects.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for looking up specific compliance frameworks when you have a short id. It implies use cases and scope without explicit exclusions or alternatives. While it doesn't directly compare to sibling tools, the focused purpose makes usage obvious, earning a 4 for clear context.

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