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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful scoping context ('this owner's Blueprint version', 'generation-governance decisions') but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or what fields the returned decisions contain. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with no filler and gets to the core subject quickly. However, it is a sentence fragment without an explicit operation, so the brevity comes at some cost to 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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what a returned decision record looks like, how results are ordered, or how 'generation-governance decisions' relate to govern_inference. With five parameters and no output schema, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer about both selection and result interpretation.

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 the baseline is 3 even without parameter detail in the tool description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the mention of 'owner's Blueprint version' loosely aligns with the blueprint and blueprint_version parameters but adds little.

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 identifies the resource as 'recent generation-governance decisions' scoped to the owner's Blueprint version, so the agent can infer this is a read/list tool. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'returns', and it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as govern_inference or get_inference_trace.

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 nearby siblings like govern_inference, get_inference_trace, or check_blueprint_health. The intended context is only implicit from the name and description, with no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions stated.

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