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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the cost profile ('free' in title/description) and the per-item payload semantics (each control carries the enforcing gate and its rationale). It does not state pagination, ordering, or total count, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns for a list endpoint.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource identification, followed by the ordering directive and a note on record contents. No filler and no repetition of annotation-declared safety traits.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back; it does so at a high level (a list of yes/no controls, each with enforcing gate and rationale) and marks the tool as free. The exact field names (e.g., control id, question text) are implied but not enumerated, a minor gap for a zero-param call.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter discussion, keeping focus on what the call returns.

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 ('Fetch') and a well-defined resource ('the OceanAlt Agent Control Baseline'), and immediately defines what that resource is: the list of yes/no controls an operator must run before moving money. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling attest_control_baseline, which it names as the downstream step.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this before attest_control_baseline so you file against real control ids,' giving a concrete ordering rule and the reason for it. It stops short of naming exclusion cases (e.g., when a cached baseline is acceptable), but the sequencing guidance is unambiguous.

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