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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint; the description adds operational context by noting the promoter cycle runs hourly and that the snapshot surfaces survival/deprecation outcomes. This goes beyond the structured hints and clarifies update cadence and expected content.

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 organized into labeled sections (Purpose, Triggers, When to call, Prerequisites, Next steps, Caveats) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is slightly wordy with multiple trigger examples and a generic disclaimer, but each section earns its place.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully complete: it explains what the snapshot contains, when to use it, prerequisites, the hourly caveat, and directs to the sibling tool for deeper detail. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter explanation is necessary. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to clarify and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than input.

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 states it provides a feature governance snapshot with OBSERVATION/CONDITIONAL/ACTIVE/DEPRECATED distribution and last 7-day transitions. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_feature_governance_state by pointing to that tool for full per-feature lifecycle detail.

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?

It explicitly lists Triggers and 'When to call' with concrete examples (e.g., 'which features are actually used?', trust evaluation). It also names get_feature_governance_state as the alternative for more detailed lifecycle information, which helps with tool selection.

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