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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower; the description still adds permission requirement, org-membership constraint, and license tier. 'Idempotent' merely repeats the annotation, so not a full 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then constraints. No filler; a bit telegraphic but every clause carries information.

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 write tool with no output schema, it covers the key auth/membership/tier/idempotency facts an agent needs before invoking. Missing only the semantics of the gate enum values.

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 coverage is 50%: userId is described in the schema, but the gate enum values (PROPOSAL_REVIEW, BUSINESS_CASE_REVIEW, PLAN_REVIEW) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description only implies the gate via 'specific governance gate'. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Designate a user as a gate reviewer for a specific governance gate.' An agent can distinguish it from list_gate_reviewers/list_gate_approvals, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions — requires org.governance.manage, user must be an active org member, ENTERPRISE+ governance feature. It states when the tool is callable but offers no comparison to alternatives or exclusion cases.

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