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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context about what the returned unit includes, such as key requirements and implementable controls. No hidden side effects or contradictions are present.

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 two short sentences. The first sentence states the action and expected contents, and the second gives a clear workflow instruction. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple parameter set, full schema coverage, existing output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation. The workflow hint about obtaining a slug from search or list_governance completes the picture.

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%, and the schema already explains the 'slug' parameter and the 'locale' enum with a default. The description only reinforces retrieval by slug and adds no new parameter-level details, so the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one AI governance unit by slug'. It also names the returned contents ('scope, key requirements, implementable controls, a checklist and common pitfalls'), which distinguishes it from list_governance and search by signaling a focused retrieval operation.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to use this tool 'once search or list_governance has given you a slug'. This directly names the prerequisite step and the alternative tools, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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