Search the register

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world semantics, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the searchable-field scope, language handling, and paging behavior, which is real value, but it says nothing about result shape or ordering beyond paging.

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; the core capability leads. The clipped fragments ('Optionally limited to one baseline', 'Paged.') are terse but cost no clarity.

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 should ideally hint at what results contain (matching areas, total counts, paging fields), which it does not. Annotations and the schema cover safety and inputs, so an agent can call it correctly, but the return side is left entirely implicit.

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 every parameter including enums and defaults is already documented in the schema. The description only mirrors query/lang/baseline/limit without adding syntax, matching rules, or default behavior beyond what the schema states. 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 verb (search) and resource (control areas) plus the searchable fields (id, title, summary) and languages. It is clearly distinguishable from list-style siblings, though it never names them or explains why one would search rather than list.

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?

Implies usage ('optionally limited to one baseline', 'paged') but gives no explicit when-to-use versus corf_list_areas or corf_get_area, and no statement of prerequisites or exclusions. The context is inferable but not spelled out.

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