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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this tool can mutate state — but the description adds nothing beyond that. It does not say which actions are reads (list_plans, get_contract) versus irreversible mutations (terminate_contract), nor does it mention authorization, approval flows, or side effects, which matters greatly for a tool mixing approval and termination operations.

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 single sentence is brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise: it spends its only sentence listing nouns and provides no structure, grouping, or routing information to help an agent handle 24 distinct actions.

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 24 enum actions, an opaque nested params object with no schema descriptions, destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description is nowhere near complete enough to call this tool correctly. It omits action selection, parameter shapes, and any behavioral caveats.

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 0% and the description compensates for none of it. The 'params' field is an unconstrained nested object whose shape presumably varies per action, yet the description never explains what goes in it for any of the 24 actions — a serious gap for a tool with nested objects.

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 is a bare noun list of resource domains ('Governance plans, standing orders, escalations, companies, contracts, memberships...') with no verb and no statement of what the tool actually does with them. The enumeration does loosely separate it from siblings like handoff_task or handoff_work, but it largely restates the 'gov' in the name rather than defining an 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no indication of which of the 24 actions to pick for a given intent, no prerequisites, no mention of how this differs from handoff_team, handoff_offer, or other siblings. An agent must infer everything from the action enum alone.

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