query_oscal_documentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does well: it explains the return varies by configuration (Bedrock RetrieveResponse when a Knowledge Base exists, otherwise a local page response) and lists its fields (items, total, offset, limit, hasMore). It still omits auth, rate limits, and what happens on no-match, so it is not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then Args/Returns blocks that map cleanly to the schema and the absent output schema. The Returns block is somewhat verbose for what an agent needs, but every section carries information and nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return-shape information an agent would otherwise lack, and it declares the schema-first precondition. Remaining gaps (error behavior, retriever configuration specifics) are minor for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does by defining query as 'Question or search query about OSCAL'. That clarifies intent beyond the schema's bare type/title, though it adds nothing about phrasing, length, or filters.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: querying OSCAL-related documentation. It distinguishes itself from the schema-oriented sibling get_schema by name, so an agent can tell which class of question belongs here rather than opening both schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('when a question about OSCAL cannot be answered just by analyzing model schemas') and routes the agent to get_schema for explicit property questions. It does not mention the sibling text_search_oscal or query_catalog, so the alternative space is only partially covered.

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