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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description's main additions are the error-return convention ('never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ...}') and the note about retrying safely. This goes beyond the structured annotations to describe failure behavior, which is valuable context.

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 moderately long but every sentence carries functional information from purpose to error handling. The persona characterization ('allergic to 'it's probably fine'') is slightly stylistic but earns its place by conveying expected audit tone. Overall well-structured with clear paragraphs.

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?

For a zero-argument tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, return shape, and error behavior. It also clarifies licensing ('PREMIUM') and safety properties. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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?

Takes zero parameters, and the description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments.' With no schema properties to explain, baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description confirms the absence without ambiguity.

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 'Load the Governance Auditor persona for consistent fleet audits' with a specific verb+resource. Explicitly distinguishes from audit tools via 'Not for running an audit - the audit tools do that.' Clear purpose.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to keep repeated audits consistent in voice and rigor' and 'Not for running an audit - the audit tools do that,' providing both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. Also identifies alternative tool category.

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