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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it reflects live constants, discloses no private standing, and outlines enforced brakes and detection mechanisms. This goes beyond the annotations, providing useful behavioral context without contradiction.

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 very long and dense, covering many details. It is front-loaded with the core concept but then expands into extensive detail. While each sentence carries information, it is not concise. The structure is organized but could be trimmed for a tool description.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns, listing all components of the governance model. It also provides an invocation example and clarifies what it does not disclose. This is comprehensive for a zero-parameter 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is complete. The description provides an example invocation, which satisfies the need for parameter semantics. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 explaining federation governance, detailing the autonomy ladder, clamps, and related concepts. It is distinct from siblings by topic, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. The purpose is specific and not a tautology.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. The description implies usage for understanding the governance model, and the caution to verify against live tools is advisory rather than selection guidance. No exclusions are provided.

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