Api policies status retrieve

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description says the endpoint allows records to be 'viewed or edited' – implying write capability that the annotation explicitly denies. It also never states what this endpoint actually returns (presumably the enumerated policy status choices).

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, front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is structurally fine. However, the sentence is generic DRF boilerplate that spends its only clause on the wrong resource, so brevity does not translate into usefulness.

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 parameters, the description is the only place an agent could learn that this returns the set of valid policy statuses. Instead it describes a different entity and a read/write capability, leaving the actual behavior undocumented.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds nothing about parameters, but nothing is needed.

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 states 'API endpoint that allows applied controls to be viewed or edited', but the tool is a status-retrieve endpoint for policies, not applied controls. It names the wrong resource, so an agent cannot distinguish this from ciso_assistant_api_applied_controls_status_retrieve or the many other *_status_retrieve siblings.

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 call this versus the dozens of other status/choices endpoints, and no scope or prerequisite information. Given the description points at a different resource entirely (applied controls), any inference an agent draws about when to use it would likely be wrong.

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