cms_list_requirements

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the max return limit (200 rows) and the free-text search behavior ('across name, domain, category, applicability, owner'), which gives the agent a good understanding of the tool's scope and constraints. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but given the complexity (filtering tool with no destructive impact), the disclosure is strong.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence defines the action, resource, and catalog scope. The second sentence lists the filters and the max return. Every piece of information earns its place—there is no redundant or filler content. Perfectly front-loaded and scannable.

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 parameter count (6, all optional), no output schema, and the straightforward nature of a filtering/list tool, the description provides sufficient context. It tells the agent what the tool does, what filters are available, and the max result count. A 5 would require additional details like default sorting, behavior when limit is exceeded, or whether filters are case-sensitive, but overall the description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, meaning all 6 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it lists the filter parameters but provides no additional semantic context (e.g., how filters combine—AND or OR? can multiple owners be specified?). Since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3, and the description does not earn a higher score by adding meaningful extra detail.

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/filter') and the resource ('compliance requirements from the CMS catalog'), and provides specific scope details (584 requirements / 80 domains / 11 categories). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming all filterable fields and the max return limit, making it clear this is a general listing tool, unlike sibling tools like 'cms_get_requirement' (single item) or 'cms_gap_report' (analysis).

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 lists the available filters (query, domain, category, owner, applicability), which implies when to use this tool (e.g., when you need to browse or filter requirements). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when you need a single specific requirement by ID—that would be cms_get_requirement) or when alternatives like cms_search_policy or cms_risk_lookup might be more appropriate. Implied usage is adequate but not explicit.

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