list_control_objectives

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower. The description still contributes a genuine trait beyond them: this table has no number field, so number-based filtering will fail — a real caveat an agent would otherwise waste calls discovering.

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?

One sentence plus one fragment, front-loaded with name, table, and hierarchy, then the filtering constraint. No filler whatsoever.

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 list tool with no output schema and 80% schema coverage, the description supplies purpose, table identity, hierarchy, and the key filtering caveat. Pagination defaults and return shape are left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 80%, so the schema already documents limit, query, state (with value list) and display_value; baseline is 3. The description's note that there is no number field helpfully steers filtering to state/category and implicitly covers the undocumented category param, but adds no format or syntax 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+resource ('List Control Objectives'), names the underlying table (sn_compliance_policy_statement), and locates it in the GRC hierarchy between Policy and Control, which lets an agent separate it from list_compliance_policies and list_compliance_controls. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling to use instead, so not 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?

'filter by state or category' implies how to narrow results, but there is no statement of when to choose this list versus get_control_objective or the parent policy/control lists. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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