get_compliance_controls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral traits. It only says 'Look up,' implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on side effects, authentication, rate limits, or response structure. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 uses two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides supported frameworks and filter details. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of extraneous information.

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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at return structure but only mentions 'compliance controls with evaluation criteria,' which is vague. It omits pagination, limits, or behavior for invalid filters. Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, multiple frameworks), the description is adequate but not complete.

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%, with each parameter already documented. The tool description reiterates filter options (domain, control IDs, OWASP tags) but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 'Look up compliance controls with evaluation criteria,' specifying the verb and resource. It lists supported frameworks and filter options, which distinguishes it from the sibling 'evaluate_compliance' that likely performs active evaluation.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and wording imply a lookup operation, no guidance is provided on exclusions or when to prefer siblings like 'evaluate_compliance'.

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