Search ECC controls

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paged and that summaries exist in English and Arabic, which is useful context, but says nothing about ordering, total counts, or how ID matching behaves.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the primary capability is front-loaded before the optional filter and paging notes. It is arguably too terse to fully orient the agent, which keeps it below a 5.

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 still conveys the result domain (control summaries), the searchable dimensions, and paging. It falls short only on whether matching is fuzzy or exact and how results are ordered.

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 description coverage is 100% and all six parameters are self-documented (lang, limit, query, domain, offset, response_format), so the baseline is 3. The description restates lang/domain/paging without adding syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema.

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 (Search) and resource (control summaries) and enumerates the searchable axes: language and ID, plus an optional domain filter. It clearly differs from the single-record sibling ecc_get_control, though it never names the alternative explicitly.

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?

'Optionally filter by domain code' and 'Paged' imply this is the browsing/query tool, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over ecc_get_control or ecc_list_domains, and no note that query may be left empty to list everything (that fact lives only in the schema). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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