list_framework_requirements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether results are paginated (though parameters suggest it), or what format the output takes. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate behavioral context.

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, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward listing operation and gets directly to the point.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the relationship between requirements and controls (relevant given sibling tools), doesn't mention pagination behavior despite having page parameters, and provides no information about output format or structure.

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?

The description mentions 'specific compliance framework' which aligns with the 'framework_name' parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the 100% schema coverage already provides. The schema descriptions adequately explain each parameter's purpose, so the description meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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 ('List') and resource ('requirements for a specific compliance framework'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_compliance_frameworks' or 'list_requirement_controls', which reduces its score from a perfect 5.

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. With many sibling tools related to compliance and listing operations, there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus 'list_compliance_controls' or 'list_compliance_frameworks', leaving the agent without contextual usage information.

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