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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining the nature of the content (each control is answerable yes/no, carries the enforcing gate and rationale), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions; a slightly higher score would require mentioning output structure or side effects, but these are unnecessary given the simplicity.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key detail (yes/no controls). The prerequisite instruction is placed naturally. No filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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 parameterless, read-only fetch with no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it returns, why it exists, and how it relates to a specific sibling. An agent can safely invoke this tool without additional documentation.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema covers 100% of parameter definitions (empty object). The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters; it briefly references the output ('real control ids') which is relevant to consumers. With no parameters, baseline scoring is 4, and nothing is lost.

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's purpose: fetching the 'OceanAlt Agent Control Baseline' – a list of yes/no controls. It names the specific verb 'Fetch' and the resource, and distinguishes its role from the sibling attest_control_baseline by explaining it provides real control ids. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Call this before attest_control_baseline', giving a concrete precondition and the reason (to file against real control ids). While it doesn't enumerate exclusions, this is a strong, unambiguous usage directive that positions the tool correctly among siblings.

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