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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by stating 'read'. Beyond that, it discloses that a disabled or expired steward is rejected, which is meaningful behavioral context not present in annotations. It doesn't cover all edge cases (e.g., what happens if not a steward at all), but it adds value.

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?

Two concise sentences, each earning its place. The first states scope and purpose, the second covers a rejection condition. No filler, and the critical constraint is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It states what is read and who is eligible. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the format of the returned governance state, but that is not essential for a simple read call.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. Per the rubric, 0 params warrant a baseline of 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none, which is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('read') and names the exact resources ('administration instructions and current governance state'). It also adds a scoping condition ('Current steward only') that clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_governance or get_orientation, even though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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?

It communicates a clear precondition ('Current steward only') and a rejection condition for ineligible callers. However, it does not explicitly direct the agent to an alternative when the caller is not the current steward, nor does it contrast with siblings like get_governance. The context is helpful but incomplete.

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