query_assessment_results

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior (offset, limit), return structure (Page_Response), and that it is a query operation. However, it does not mention potential side effects, idempotency, or authentication needs—though as a read operation these are less critical.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It is slightly verbose (e.g., docstring style), but each sentence adds value. Could be tightened slightly, but overall efficient.

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 no output schema, the description provides the return structure. It lacks details on the content of individual items (e.g., fields of assessment results). For a query tool, this is acceptable but leaves some gaps for agents needing field-level understanding.

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 0%, but description fully explains each parameter: query_type enum values, conditional requirement for query_value, defaults for offset and limit. It clarifies the conditional dependency, which is critical for correct usage.

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 it queries OSCAL Assessment Results documents. The tool name and description differentiate it from sibling tools like list_assessment_results by specifying query_type parameter, indicating flexible querying (by uuid, title, type). This provides strong specificity.

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 explains the query_type parameter and when query_value is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternative query/list tools like list_assessment_results or query_catalog. There is no guidance on exclusions or preferred contexts, leaving some ambiguity.

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