SOC 2 control catalog

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it limits scope to 33 Common Criteria, states which categories are not covered, and explains the IaC evidence limitations (3 primary, 8 partial, 22 requiring non-scan evidence). It also tells the agent how each control reports scan capability via `iac` and `iacNote`. This is substantial added transparency with no contradiction.

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 compact and well structured: it opens with the core behavior, then scope, then the important evidence caveat. Every sentence carries useful information and none are redundant with the annotations or schema. The front-loaded main sentence lets an agent quickly understand the tool.

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?

For a read-only catalog retrieval tool with one optional enum parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the catalog contains, what it excludes, how parameter omission behaves, and what evidence capability each control reports. No critical missing context stands out.

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 schema already describes the only parameter well at 100% coverage: controlId is an enum with 'Omit for the full catalog.' The description reinforces this and adds context about what the enum values represent (CC1.1-CC9.2) and that optional categories are excluded, but it does not add materially new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 first sentence states a specific action and resource: 'Returns the SOC 2 control catalog this server evaluates against.' The description further clarifies the exact scope (SOC 2 Security category, CC1.1-CC9.2) and distinguishes what it is not (optional A/C/PI/P categories). This is clear enough to separate it from sibling tools like list_policies or map_iac_finding_to_control.

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 gives direct usage guidance: pass controlId for a single control, omit it for the full catalog. It also explicitly excludes the optional A/C/PI/P categories, which prevents a common misuse. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the usage context is clear.

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