get_requirement_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's scope (works with three ID types) but doesn't mention behavioral traits like error handling for invalid IDs, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). It adds some context but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or output structure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by specific details on ID formats. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers what the tool does and valid inputs, but without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention that it's a read operation and hint at the return format (e.g., requirement details). It's minimally viable but could be more complete.

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 already documents the single 'id' parameter with examples. The description adds value by specifying the semantic meaning of valid ID formats (KSI-*, FRR-*, FRD-*), which clarifies beyond the schema's generic examples. With 0 parameters beyond the single documented one, this exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'FedRAMP requirement by its ID', specifying it works with three distinct ID types (KSI indicators, FRR requirements, FRD definitions). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_ksi (which likely returns KSI data generally) or get_control_requirements (which might return requirements for controls).

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you have a specific requirement ID from one of the three supported formats. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the specificity of ID-based retrieval implies it's not for listing or searching without IDs.

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