get_compliance_control

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but reveals minimal behavior. It states it's a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with required parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more informative about what 'detailed information' entails to better justify 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?

For a tool with 2 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' returns, how datasource filtering affects results, or any behavioral constraints. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'control_name' identifies which control and 'datasource_ids' filters results. Since the schema already fully describes both parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource 'compliance control' with the qualifier 'detailed information about a specific' one. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_compliance_controls' by focusing on a single control rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes or how it differs from other get_* tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, compare with 'list_compliance_controls' for overview vs detail, or indicate when datasource filtering is needed. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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