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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating 'without creating anything,' explaining that application mode provides 'specific remediation for each failing rule,' and pointing to an example resource—behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 well organized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each paragraph covers one mode with a clear trigger, and the closing 'Send exactly one of the two' eliminates ambiguity. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 tool's two-mode complexity and lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential decision-making context: when to call, what to send, how to avoid blocked deployments, and where to find the manifest shape. A small gap is that it does not describe the report structure, but the schema already documents parameters and defaults.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by grouping manifest/application as mutually exclusive modes, clarifying when releaseId is relevant (with application), and referencing the springroll://manifest/example resource for document shape, which is not in the schema.

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 and resource: 'Reports which governance policies an application would pass or fail for an environment.' It also clearly separates the two invocation modes (manifest validation vs. application explanation), making its purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like springroll.deploy or springroll.deploy.promote.

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 when-to-use guidance for both modes: use manifest before springroll.deploy to avoid rejected submissions, and use application when a deployment is rejected with POLICY_BLOCKED. It also states 'Send exactly one of the two,' preventing ambiguous calls.

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