Api applied controls effort retrieve

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

The description says the endpoint 'allows applied controls to be viewed or edited', but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the tool name is a retrieve. Claiming edit capability contradicts the read-only annotation and could lead an agent to believe this mutates state. The 'effort' behavior itself (presumably returning allowed effort choices) is not disclosed at all.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, so it is concise, but it is concise boilerplate that carries no tool-specific information. Brevity here comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficiency.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and only annotations covering safety, the description is the sole source of what a caller would get back. It does not say whether the response is a list of effort values, a serialized applied-control object, or an aggregate, leaving a real gap for a read-only lookup tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level misinformation is present.

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 is generic DRF boilerplate: it names the resource family (applied controls) but never explains what 'effort' means in this endpoint or what it returns. It does not differentiate this tool from the many close siblings such as applied_controls_impact_effort_retrieve, applied_controls_priority_retrieve, or applied_controls_retrieve.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this endpoint versus alternatives, no prerequisite or context, and no exclusion of the look-up-style siblings that return similar enum/choice data. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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