Api applied controls per status retrieve

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description says the endpoint allows controls to be 'viewed or edited.' That is a direct contradiction: a retrieve endpoint annotated read-only is described as supporting edits. It also adds no behavioral detail beyond the 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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted length, so it is concise. However, that brevity comes from generic boilerplate rather than front-loading the useful per-status scoping information.

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 zero-parameter retrieve endpoint with no output schema, the description should at least explain that the response is applied controls grouped by status. Instead it gives only generic CRUD phrasing and incorrectly implies edit capability, leaving an agent unable to infer what the endpoint actually returns.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the scoring baseline for 0 params, a 4 is appropriate; the gap is the missing per-status semantics, but that is a purpose issue rather than parameter documentation.

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: 'API endpoint that allows applied controls to be viewed or edited.' It does not state that this endpoint reports applied controls grouped by status, which is the distinguishing feature implied by the tool name and by sibling per_status endpoints. It also fails to differentiate it from ciso_assistant_api_applied_controls_status_retrieve or ciso_assistant_api_applied_controls_list.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as the plain status_retrieve endpoint, and no condition selecting this per-status variant. The only usage hint is the vague 'viewed or edited' phrasing, which is not actionable.

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