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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness, and the description reinforces 'Read-only' without contradicting them. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations by specifying exactly what state is inspected (e.g., 'surfaces any pending asset-addition proposal') and that providing operation_id changes the reported outcome.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses three sentences to enumerate checks and usage, with minimal waste. The 'Read-only' phrase slightly duplicates the annotation, but the appended usage guidance justifies the sentence.

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 simple parameter schema, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, optional behavior, and usage context. It does not discuss rate limits or explicit alternatives, but those are not critical for this read-only governance inspection tool.

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 sole parameter operation_id has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents its format and purpose. The description adds that providing it 'also reports the status of that specific timelock operation,' which reinforces but does not significantly extend the structured information.

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 and resource: 'Verify GBLIN protocol governance state' and enumerates the concrete checks (vault ownership, timelock delays, role counts, pending proposals, operation status). It is clearly distinguishable from action-oriented siblings such as actions.prepare or payments.relay by its read-only governance scope and explicit 'Read-only' marker.

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 clear application context: 'use this to gate trust-sensitive agent actions' and explicitly notes the optional operation_id behavior. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when governance.state is the right choice over treasury.state or protocol.info.

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