get_compliance_control

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds the accepted identifier format with an example, but says nothing about not-found behavior or what 'full details' entails.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the identifier expectation and example are included without wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, the definition is adequate. However, there is no output schema, and 'full details' is vague about what fields are returned, so an agent cannot anticipate the response shape or a not-found outcome.

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%; the schema already explains that number_or_sysid accepts a CTRLxxxxxxx number or a 32-char sys_id. The description restates this and adds a concrete example ('CTRL0020012'), which is marginal extra value beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full details of a single Compliance Control') and the 'single' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling list_compliance_controls. It does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast with it, so it falls short of a 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 phrase 'single Compliance Control' implies this is the detail lookup used after a list call, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage must be inferred from the wording.

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