get_allowed_values

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses paging under a response budget, variable page sizes, and that an empty page returns `suggested-targets` — behavior not derivable from the schema. It stops short of stating read-only nature explicitly or error/not-found behavior for invalid targets.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then when to use it, then paging behavior. Dense with backticked field names but nearly every clause carries information; slightly cluttered for its length.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description names the payload fields and explains pagination and the empty-result case, which is what an agent needs to call and interpret it. Only permissions and invalid-target/error handling are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so model, target, limit and offset are already fully documented with examples and syntax. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that baseline, which is acceptable given the rich 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 description states a specific verb and resource — returning OSCAL Metaschema `allowed-values` constraints for a target — and enumerates what comes back (allow-other, namespace, conditions, source file/line). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_constraints at the end.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('when the JSON schema does not list the values') and names the alternative tool for the other case ('use get_constraints for other constraint types'). The empty-page/suggested-targets note adds a recovery path an agent can act on.

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