List control areas

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of real behavioral context – that results are paged and the exact filter-id shapes ('orb:6', 'crb:5.6') – but says nothing about ordering, paging limits, or what an empty result means.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: content, filters, paging. It is terse almost to a fault, but every sentence carries information.

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 correctly previews the return shape (own-words summary plus control counts) and covers filtering and paging for a simple read-only tool. Minor gaps are return ordering and the interaction between baseline/domain/subdomain filters, which an agent may have to infer.

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 coverage is 71%, and the two undocumented parameters (domain, subdomain) are precisely the ones the description compensates for by giving concrete id formats ('orb:6', 'crb:5.6'). 'Paged' also maps to the offset/limit pair. lang and response_format remain schema-only, which is acceptable.

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 (list) and resource (control areas) and says what each item contains: an own-words summary and control counts. It is distinguishable from corf_list_domains / corf_list_subdomains, though it never explicitly names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Gives usable filtering context ('Limit to a baseline, a domain id or a sub-domain id') which tells the agent how to narrow results, but it never says when to pick this over corf_list_domains, corf_list_subdomains or corf_get_area. Usage is implied rather than contrasted against alternatives.

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