get_compliance_assessment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema: it doesn't clarify what happens if both parameters are omitted, whether exactly one is needed, or what the returned results contain. The 'policy or control' scope is already present in parameters.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is efficient and easy to parse, though minimal.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description leaves ambiguity: it doesn't state whether one identifier is required, what happens when both are supplied, or what the response looks like. More detail would be expected for a retrieval tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning; the schema already explains policy_sys_id and control_sys_id, including that control is an alternative. No extra value is provided.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'compliance assessment results' and scope ('policy or control'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_compliance_policies or get_license_compliance by focusing on per-policy/control assessment results.

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?

The description implies usage (when you have a policy_sys_id or control_sys_id) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor provide exclusions or prerequisites. The schema hints at alternative parameters, but the description lacks direct guidance.

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