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

Annotations already indicate destructiveness and non-read-only behavior. The description adds important context about governance gates, approval flows, and the possibility of returning a special status instead of acting, which goes 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 two sentences, both directly relevant. The first sentence states the core action, and the second explains the governance behavior. No wasted words.

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?

The description explains one possible outcome (requires_approval) but does not detail success responses, error conditions, or parameter interplay. With no output schema and nested objects, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema coverage, but it does not compensate for any potential gaps.

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 clearly identifies the tool as applying a remediation in live mode through a governance funnel. It is specific about the action (apply remediation) but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_remediation, though the context implies the difference.

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 explains that the tool routes through governance and may require approval, returning 'requires_approval' instead of acting. This provides good context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like dry-run modes.

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