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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds some context about the scope of governance units but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or error behavior. Since the bar is lowered with annotations present, the added value is moderate.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with parenthetical examples and an explicit alternative clause. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every element adds value without 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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and return fields. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without ambiguity.

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 only parameter `locale` is fully described in the schema (enum with default and description), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('AI governance units') with concrete examples (EU AI Act, ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF), and enumerates the output fields (id, slug, category, name, summary). It clearly distinguishes from sibling `search` by naming it as an alternative for obligations/controls.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use this to browse the regulations and standards; use `search` for an obligation or control.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool versus a sibling, and the phrase 'List all' implies no filtering is needed.

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