List domains

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

The annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so safety is covered. The description adds modest behavioral value by fixing the result size at 27 domains and naming the returned fields, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what counts represent.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and result cardinality, then the optional filter. There is no filler and nothing that fails to earn 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields, and the simple zero-required-parameter shape is fully documented by the schema. Only minor gaps remain, such as result ordering and how counts are scoped.

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 three parameters are enum-documented, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's only parameter contribution is restating that baseline is an optional single-value filter, which adds nothing 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?

The description names the resource precisely (the 27 CORF domains) and enumerates the returned attributes (baseline, reference number, title, counts), which lets an agent separate it from siblings like corf_list_subdomains, corf_list_areas and corf_list_baselines. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 limited to one baseline" implies the filtering use case, but there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus corf_list_baselines or corf_list_areas, and no exclusions or prerequisites. 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.