Api policies impact effort retrieve

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

The description claims the endpoint allows records to be 'edited', which directly contradicts the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations. No other behavior (filtering scope, what data is produced, auth or caching) is disclosed.

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, so there is no padding, but the content is boilerplate rather than useful information. Brevity without substance is not conciseness in the intended sense.

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 and no annotations explaining the payload, the description is the only place to say what the response contains (e.g. the list of impact/effort labels). It says nothing about the return value or scope, so the agent cannot call it with confidence.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. The description cannot add parameter meaning because there is nothing to describe, and nothing is stated incorrectly about inputs.

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 wrong resource: it says 'applied controls' while the tool is a policies impact/effort lookup. It also fails to state what is actually returned (the impact/effort vocabulary used by policies), leaving the agent unable to tell what this endpoint produces versus the siblings ciso_assistant_api_policies_effort_retrieve or ..._impact_graph_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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many adjacent policy endpoints (effort, priority, impact graph, analytics). The only implicit signal, 'viewed or edited', points in the wrong direction and gives no exclusions.

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