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

The description explicitly discloses behavioral traits: it's read-only, reflects live constants, and discloses no specific manager's private standing. The annotations already set readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds context about what the returned data represents and that it's a live snapshot. It doesn't contradict 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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing what the returned object contains. It has a clear order: purpose, read-only note, and output details with an example. It is a bit verbose but each sentence serves a purpose.

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 the tool's complexity, the description is quite thorough. It covers the autonomy ladder, manager ceiling, always-escalate path, confidence thresholds, and manager-standing enforcement, and details the returned object's contents. No output schema is provided, so the description compensates by listing the returned model fields. The example call adds practical guidance.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema covers 100% by default, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by mentioning the example call with empty arguments, clarifying that no parameters are needed, which is useful.

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 explains the tool's purpose: it describes the federation's governance model, including the autonomy ladder, manager ceiling, and enforcement details. It explicitly states it is read-only and provides the live governance constants. While it mentions 'how the federation governs its agents,' it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from siblings, but the detailed focus on governance model sets it apart.

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?

The description clearly states this is read-only and reflects live constants, implying it's for looking up governance rules rather than modifying them. It mentions returning a governance-model object and even provides an example call. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like 'federation_agent_status' or 'federation_solvency', but the read-only nature and specific focus provide clear context.

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