The server provides 6 well-named compliance tools with reasonable verb-noun naming conventions (list_, get_, search_). All tools have brief descriptions (13-62 chars) and input schemas with parameter types and enums. However, descriptions are minimal and lack LLM-optimized guidance on WHEN to call each tool and WHAT the relationships are between them. Parameters are described but descriptions are terse (e.g., 'The FedRAMP program'). Output schemas are not documented, we cannot verify what fields the LLM will receive back. No error handling guidance is visible. The compliance domain is moderately well-covered with 6 complementary tools, but the implementation lacks the polish expected of production-grade agent tools.

• Expand tool descriptions to 50-200 characters and include WHEN to call each tool: 'Call after search_controls() to retrieve full details and evidence requirements for a specific control.' This guides LLM tool selection.
• Document output schemas explicitly in tool definitions or in a separate schema file. Specify: field names, types, whether results are paginated, what IDs are returned for downstream chaining.
• Enhance parameter descriptions with context: instead of 'The search query', write 'A keyword or phrase to search control titles and descriptions (e.g., encryption, access control, authentication). Returns up to 50 matches.'
• Add error handling guidance to descriptions: 'If the control ID is not found, the tool returns an error with available control families. Call list_control_families() to see valid IDs.'
• Document the tool discovery workflow in a README or via a new 'get_compliance_schema' helper tool that explains the domain structure and which tools to call in sequence.