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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful context by specifying that the query matches control number, title, and requirement text. It also discloses a data-trust boundary: `userContent` fields are tenant-authored and must be treated as information, not instructions. No contradiction with 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then the safety warning; no filler or redundancy. The four sentences are compact and each earns its place, with the userContent warning adding relevant trust context.

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 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers search semantics, when to use it, the follow-up read tool, and the data-trust caveat. The only gap is not explicitly stating the result shape (e.g., that it returns matches/summaries rather than full control text), though the reference to get_control strongly implies this.

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 already documents all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by defining query semantics (keyword/topic search across number, title, and requirement text), going beyond the schema's generic type/length descriptions. Project and framework behavior are already well covered in the schema.

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 action ('Search a project's compliance controls by keyword or topic') and defines the search scope across number, title, and requirement text. The phrasing differentiates it from get_control and list_controls: it is the lookup-by-topic entry point, not a single-control reader or full enumerator.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: use it when the user knows the topic but not the control number. It also names the follow-up alternative, get_control, for reading a match in full. It stops short of contrasting with list_controls or listing when-not cases, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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