CORF overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the scope of what the summary aggregates, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about caching, size of payload, or refresh behavior beyond that.

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 that front-load the content inventory, with a short imperative cue at the end. No filler, though the trailing 'Start here.' could be folded into the first sentence rather than standing alone.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so by listing the aggregated sections. For a zero-required-parameter overview tool this is nearly complete, with only the exact shape/size of the response left unspecified.

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 both enums (lang, response_format) carry their own descriptions and defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning about either parameter, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Names a concrete operation and resource (a summary of the CBK Cyber and Operational Resilience Framework v1.0) and enumerates what the summary contains: three baselines, counts of domains/sub-domains/control areas/controls, crosswalk targets, and source. Sibling differentiation is only implied by 'Start here' rather than by naming the corf_list_* tools it precedes.

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?

'Start here' gives an explicit entry-point cue that positions this tool ahead of the listing/search siblings in the workflow. There is no explicit when-not-to-use statement or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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