ism_applicable

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral details: hybrid retrieval method, RRF scoring, invalid filter failure, limit cap, verbose field population, and score normalization. No contradictions; adds significant context beyond 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?

The description is thorough but not excessive; every sentence adds value. It front-loads the purpose and usage, then lists filters and behavior. Slightly long but justified by complexity.

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?

Given the tool's 7 parameters, many siblings, and existence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and output notes (score and verbose). It references sibling tools for non-applicable cases, making it complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining all optional parameters: classification values, maturity note, tags validated against ism_list_sections, paths effect, limit default/cap, and verbose behavior. The required 'work' parameter is only described as 'free-text description'; a example would strengthen it.

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 clearly states the tool ranks ISM controls relevant to a free-text description, calling itself the 'primary discovery tool'. It immediately distinguishes from ism_search for exact lookup, providing a specific verb+resource combination.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (for free-text description) and when not (exact keyword lookup, use ism_search). Provides detailed guidance on each optional filter, including maturity scoping and tag validation, making decisions clear.

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