Api applied controls ids retrieve

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

The description claims the endpoint 'allows applied controls to be viewed or edited', but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. 'Edited' contradicts a read-only retrieve endpoint, and no real behavioral context (return shape, pagination, scope) is provided.

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?

A single short sentence, so it is concise, but the only substance in it ('viewed or edited') is misleading. Brevity does not compensate for the mismatch with the read-only annotation.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameter schema, so the description is the only source of information about what this endpoint returns. It says nothing about the ID payload, format, or how it differs from the many other applied_controls endpoints, leaving the agent unable to use it confidently.

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. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter claims are made or missing.

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 names the resource ('applied controls') but says only that it is an 'API endpoint that allows applied controls to be viewed or edited', which is generic REST boilerplate. It never states what the 'ids' variant returns (presumably identifiers) nor distinguishes it from siblings like applied_controls_retrieve, applied_controls_list, or applied_controls_object_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?

No indication of when to call this instead of applied_controls_list, applied_controls_retrieve, or applied_controls_object_retrieve. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the tool name suffix 'ids_retrieve'.

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