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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: fields are filled only where the template has a slot, the agency name is left bracketed, and it explicitly disclaims legal advice.

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?

Front-loads the action and the source template, then requirements, then caveats. The parameter enumeration partially repeats the schema, but the disclaimer and source URL are worth their space; overall it is tight and free of filler.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: it says what the policy contains, how unspecified fields (agency name) are handled, and links the canonical template. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 all four parameters (state, ai_tools, agency_size, agency_type) are already documented in the schema. The description restates them at a high level ('agency type (benefits, pc, or both), state, the AI tools in use, and agency size') without adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Draft an AI governance policy for an insurance agency') and names the source artifact ('the public Integrated AI template'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like assess_ai_readiness, check_data_safety, and find_workflows.

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?

Gives clear operating context: it requires agency type, state, AI tools, and agency size, and it produces a templated policy. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over a sibling or any exclusions, but the siblings are far enough apart that routing is unambiguous.

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