query_poam

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes pagination behavior, default values, and the return structure (Page_Response). It does not mention side effects or access requirements, but for a query tool the disclosed information is sufficient.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns). It is concise, using one sentence for purpose and a list for parameters, with no unnecessary words.

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 complexity (4 parameters, pagination, multiple query modes) and lack of output schema, the description fully covers usage and the return type. It provides all necessary information for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the enum values for query_type, the conditional requirement for query_value, and the defaults and range for offset/limit. This adds significant meaning 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?

Description clearly states it queries OSCAL POA&M documents, specifying the verb 'Query' and resource 'POA&M'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_poams by offering multiple query modes (by_uuid, by_title, by_type), making the purpose specific and actionable.

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?

Description explains query_type options and when query_value is required, and details pagination parameters (offset, limit). However, it does not explicitly contrast with other query_* tools or state when to use this tool over list_poams, leaving some implicit guidance.

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