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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool is 'Free, no authentication' and explains the routing behavior that makes it succeed where the sibling fails. However, it does not describe the response format beyond a brief '200: Successful Response', nor does it mention any potential pagination or limit on controls returned. Still, the important behavioral detail (the URL routing issue) is well explained.

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 moderately concise, with a clear front-loaded definition of the tool's purpose. It includes a substantial explanatory section about the routing issue that is relevant but slightly verbose. Overall, it is well-structured and each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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 is a simple get operation with a small input schema and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the key nuance about forward slashes, authentication, and parameter placement. The only minor gap is the lack of detail about the response shape, but since there is no output schema and the tool's purpose is clear, the description is adequate.

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 already has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions, including an example for 'name' ('CCPA/CPRA') and a filter description for 'domain'. The tool description reinforces the key parameter semantics by explaining that 'name' is a query parameter and adding the context that it must be the exact framework name. While the description doesn't add more detail on 'domain', the schema already covers it, so the marginal value is decent but not maximal.

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 purpose: 'Get all controls for a framework, naming it as a query parameter'. It identifies the principal action (get controls) and the resource (framework) via a query parameter. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'agent_get_framework_controls' by noting the different parameter placement and use case (for frameworks with forward slashes).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this whenever the framework name contains a forward slash'. It also explains why the alternative path-based route fails (server decodes %2F, causing 404), and clarifies that this route 'works for every framework'. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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