Sources and provenance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content transparency by specifying exactly what is returned, including the provenance note and count discrepancy, but it does not explain output format, pagination, or any other behavioral details beyond what annotations and schema already provide.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though its noun-phrase structure lacks an explicit action verb that would make it more immediately clear as an instruction.

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?

Given a simple read-only tool with two fully described parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the returned content and a notable detail. It does not address return format or language behavior, but those are handled by the schema parameters.

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 parameters (lang, response_format) have enum descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the inputs.

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 clearly identifies the specific resource and content: official sources, what each was used for, and a provenance note with the CBK count discrepancy. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like corf_overview, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not state conditions, prerequisites, or which sibling tool to prefer for source/provenance information. Usage is only implied by the resource content.

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