Crosswalk from a CORF area

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the mapping is 'this project's analysis, not an official mapping', which signals data trust and provenance. It also names the specific framework versions included, but does not cover return behavior or limitations like coverage gaps.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines the mapping scope and the second provides a critical caveat. It is appropriately sized, though the first sentence is somewhat dense and could be more front-loaded with the action.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It states what data is included but does not describe the structure of the returned crosswalk (e.g., list of control IDs, titles, summaries) or pagination behavior. For a simple read-only lookup this is minimally adequate but leaves a gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the id format example ('crb:5.6.1'), language enum, and response format. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when coverage is high.

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 specifies the exact resource (crosswalk) and scope (one CORF control area) by naming the frameworks included: ISO 27001 Annex A, PCI DSS v4.0.1, SWIFT CSCF v2026. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'maps', but the implied retrieval is clear. Sibling differentiation from corf_reverse_crosswalk is only implicit via the title and the phrase 'woven to one CORF control area'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as corf_reverse_crosswalk or corf_get_area. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases. The description merely states what the tool contains.

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