lookup_compliance

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, side-effect-free operation. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool returns families, chapters, and related controls, clarifying the output scope without contradicting 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 is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action ('Reverse compliance lookup') and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without 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?

The description is fairly complete for a lookup tool: it specifies input types (PCI-DSS/ISO27001), output types (NIST/ASVS), and the mapping direction. It does not describe output format, but the existence of an output schema compensates for that. Some limitations or examples could improve completeness, but overall adequate.

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?

No description parameter documentation needed as schema coverage is 100%. The description adds overall context ('reverse compliance lookup') but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as auto-detection of framework.

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 the tool performs a 'reverse compliance lookup' to find NIST SP 800-53 families, ASVS chapters, and related controls from PCI-DSS or ISO 27001 requirements. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the exact mapping direction and source frameworks.

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 usage when you have a PCI-DSS or ISO 27001 requirement and need corresponding NIST/ASVS controls, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compliance_map or nist_compliance_map. No exclusion criteria or example scenarios are provided.

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