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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the Est. per Agent is defined as the median of per-Agent median reward across the last 3 paid closes, and that standing resets in each segment. It does not describe ordering, pagination, or response shape, keeping it below a 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?

The purpose and scope come first, followed by the returned fields and estimate definition, then the usage sentence — a sensible front-load. The middle is a dense comma-delimited enumeration that borders on list-like but each item corresponds to real returned content.

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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration plus the explicit estimate formula does most of the work an agent needs to interpret results. Some items remain underspecified ('graders and agreement', 'the latest closes'), leaving minor gaps for a single-parameter read 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the segment parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the archive caveat for segment 1. The description's 'for one segment' and 'Standing starts fresh in each segment' add slight clarifying context but no parameter behavior beyond 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 names a specific resource (governance overview for one segment) and enumerates what it contains: established count, per-level counts (at_risk, watch, safe, no_record, system), graders and agreement, estimate per Agent, and latest closes. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_agent_governance or list_governance_standing as an aggregate 'one-call picture', though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those tools.

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 closing sentence 'Use it for a one-call picture of governance in a segment' gives a clear selection context that implies aggregate use over per-agent or per-list alternatives. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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