get_grc_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the accepted identifier formats, and says nothing about what 'full details' comprises, error behavior for unknown sys_ids, or result size.

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 the key noun, scope and identifier example. No filler, nothing an agent must skip past.

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 read-only single-record fetch with a fully documented one-param schema and no output schema, the definition is near-sufficient. The remaining gap is that 'full details' is undefined, so the agent cannot anticipate which fields or how large a payload it receives.

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% and the parameter is required with a documented format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's example ('IPT0011010') mildly reinforces the schema's 'IPTxxxxxxx' pattern but adds no new constraint or validation 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a single GRC Issue) plus the identifier forms, which clearly separates it from list_grc_issues and update_grc_issue. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 word 'single' implies this is the retrieval path when you already have an identifier, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not route the agent to list_grc_issues for discovery or update_grc_issue for mutation.

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