Api compliance assessments comparable audits retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond that: it never explains what makes two assessments 'comparable' (same framework, perimeter, version?) or what the returned list contains, which is the one behavioral detail an agent would actually need.

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 filler; the subject and scope are front-loaded. It is efficient, though perhaps too terse given the undefined comparability criterion.

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 output schema, the description should at minimum describe the shape or scope of the returned list, and it does not. For a simple single-parameter read it is serviceable but leaves the key question of comparability criteria unanswered.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required 'id' parameter. The phrase 'with this one' weakly signals that the id is the reference assessment against which candidates are matched, but the format and resolution rules are unstated, so the description only partially compensates.

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 verb and resource: it returns a list of compliance assessments that are comparable to a given one. This distinguishes it from the sibling compare_retrieve, which performs the comparison itself rather than enumerating candidates.

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?

Usage is strongly implied – call it with an assessment id to discover which other assessments can be compared – but the description never says so explicitly, nor does it name compare_retrieve as the natural next step or note any eligibility conditions.

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