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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so no safety disclaimer is needed. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the response contains scope, key requirements, implementable controls, checklist, and common pitfalls, which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not discuss not-found behavior, but the output schema and the explicit slug-precondition reduce that gap.

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 sentences, each earning their place: one defines the action and payload, the other gives the precise invocation context. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 simple get-by-slug tool with full schema coverage, read-only/idempotent annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what to expect inside the response, when to call it, and how to obtain a valid slug.

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 the schema already documents both slug and locale with an example and default. The description adds only the operational hint that the slug should come from search/list_governance, which is helpful but not a substantial parameter-semantics contribution.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Get one AI governance unit by slug') and enumerates the payload contents (scope, requirements, controls, checklist, pitfalls). It also names the sibling flow (search/list_governance), so it is clearly distinguished from listing and search tools.

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 explicitly states when the tool is appropriate: 'Use this once search or list_governance has given you a slug.' This gives an actionable precondition and implicitly says not to call it before obtaining a slug from those alternatives.

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