List sub-domains

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds only the finite cardinality (93) and the composition of each entry; it says nothing about ordering, paging, or what a filtered miss returns. Modest additive value.

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 tightly written sentences with zero redundancy: the payload is stated first and the optional filtering constraint second. Nothing is padded or restated.

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 read-only, no-output-schema list tool the description names the returned fields and the filtering options, and annotations cover the safety profile. Ordering/pagination behavior is the only unaddressed aspect, a minor 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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters including the lang/response_format enums are already documented. The description repeats the domain id format ('crb:5') and baseline filtering that the schema supplies, adding no semantic detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (the 93 CORF sub-domains) and enumerates exactly what each record carries: domain, title, official page, and area/control counts. This clearly separates it from corf_list_domains and corf_list_areas, which have no such count fields.

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 notes the listing can be limited to one baseline or one domain id, which implies the filtering use case, but it never states when to choose this tool over corf_list_domains or corf_list_baselines. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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