nist-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the scope of data returned ('complete details... statement, guidance, parameters, related controls, baselines, and cross-framework mappings') and clarifies the relationship with enhancements. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states the core purpose and data scope, second explains the optional parameter, third provides critical usage guidance. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 has annotations covering safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), 100% schema description coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides exactly what's needed: clear purpose, usage boundaries, and additional context about data scope. No gaps remain for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds some semantic context: it provides an example for control_id ('e.g. AC-2') and explains the effect of include_enhancements ('to also get all enhancement sub-controls'), but doesn't add significant information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific action ('Get complete details') and resource ('a specific SP 800-53 Rev 5 control'), listing the exact information returned. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating 'Do NOT use this for searching -- use search_controls to find controls first', making the distinction unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it specifies when to use this tool ('for a specific control') and when not to use it ('Do NOT use this for searching'), naming the alternative tool ('search_controls'). It also provides guidance on the optional parameter ('Set include_enhancements=True to also get all enhancement sub-controls').

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