get_evidence_gaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the selection rule (no current unexpired evidence) and the as_of sensitivity, but does not describe read-only behavior, pagination, sorting, or how 'current' is determined. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core output is front-loaded, and the important as_of parameter note follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, has no required parameters, and an output schema exists, so the missing return-value detail is acceptable. However, the framework parameter remains undocumented and there is no differentiation from sibling coverage tools, leaving the context incomplete for reliable selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to as_of by specifying ISO date format and default, but framework is completely unexplained and receives no semantic description in either the schema or the tool description.

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 identifies the tool's output: controls with no current unexpired evidence, framed as an audit-readiness worklist. It lacks an explicit verb but the tool name supplies the action, and the meaning is distinguishable from siblings like list_controls or list_evidence.

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 'audit-readiness worklist' phrase implies when an agent would use this tool, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over similar siblings such as get_control_coverage or list_evidence. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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