dms_legal_controls

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Query', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, whether it requires authentication, whether results are paginated, or how the filter behaves. The lack of any behavioral details beyond the verb is a significant gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and resource. It is tight, with no redundant words, and efficiently conveys the tool's core function.

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 has two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a basic overview of inputs and outputs. However, it omits details like pagination behavior, the meaning of 'P/D/C', and what happens when no filter is applied. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain the filter behavior, default limit behavior, or what 'P/D/C' stands for. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the load, but the description could have enriched the semantic understanding.

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 tool queries a specific resource ('Compliance Control Library (63 controls) from the Legal Compliance Workbook') and lists the exact fields returned (description, category, P/D/C, effectiveness, test method). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dms_legal_kpi or dms_legal_register, which target different data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dms_legal_requirement or dms_search. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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