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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output structure (per-API results, aggregates, punch-list) and mentions 'PRO' implying possible access constraints. But it does not state whether the operation is read-only, if it modifies anything, or address performance implications of running on many APIs—an important gap for a heavy roll-up tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action ('Run the core governance checks across a WHOLE SET...'), followed by output details and invocation notes. Each sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 must fully define the return and usage context. It covers the main outputs and inputs, but lacks details on `ruleset` format, limits on API count, error behavior, or what 'dimensions' are added by `detail`. As a complex tool, these gaps could lead to misuse.

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?

The schema documents only `apis` with a description, and the description adds detail on its structure ([{id, document}]) and that `document` alone is accepted. It also introduces `ruleset` and `detail` which are not in the schema (though additionalProperties allows them), but gives only cursory mention—no types or format for `ruleset`, and `detail` is just a boolean flag without further explanation.

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 states the tool runs governance checks across a whole set of internal APIs and rolls them up, listing specific outputs (per-API score/grade/errors/PII, estate aggregates, punch-list). It distinguishes from single-API tools by emphasizing 'whole set' and 'roll them up', though it doesn't explicitly name alternative siblings like governance_report.

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?

Provides invocation guidance: pass `apis` and `ruleset`, and `detail:true` adds per-API dimensions. However, it doesn't state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., governance_report for a single API or other scoring tools), nor what conditions trigger its use over siblings.

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