get_grc_indicator

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds that it returns 'full details' but does not describe output contents, missing-record behavior, or any scoping constraints, which is acceptable but minimal given the annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or wasted wording. It conveys purpose and identifier scope efficiently.

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 single-record getter with one fully documented parameter and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is largely complete. The only real gap is that 'full details' is not elaborated and there is no output schema, so return-field expectations remain somewhat vague.

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%, and the single parameter is already documented as an indicator number (INDxxxxxxx) or 32-character sys_id. The description adds an example value but no additional syntax or lookup behavior beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get full details of a single GRC Indicator') and distinguishes the single-record scope from sibling list/create/update tools. It also names the accepted lookup keys (sys_id or number), so an agent can immediately tell what the tool does.

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 implies when to use this tool by saying it retrieves a single indicator by identifier or number. However, it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of list_grc_indicators, get_grc_indicator_dashboard, or list_indicator_results, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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