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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond that: the nine evaluated dimensions, the eight named presets, and the return structure (per-company pass/fail with rule breakdown plus aggregate stats). No auth or rate-limit notes, but the added behavioral detail is substantial.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the evaluated dimensions, presets, and return shape. It is efficient overall, though enumerating all eight preset IDs duplicates the schema's preset description and the nine-dimension list is somewhat long, preventing a perfect score.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value explanation is not strictly required, and the annotations carry the safety profile; the description still supplies scope, dimensions, and presets. The one loose end is 'configurable thresholds', which no parameter exposes (nor does the schema), leaving a minor ambiguity about how thresholds are tuned.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the full preset list and the ticker default of all companies. The description mirrors this ('8 presets available', 'all NZX companies (or a subset)') without adding format or syntax meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Run a governance policy compliance check') and immediately narrows scope to NZX companies. It enumerates the nine governance dimensions it evaluates, which distinguishes it from sibling score tools like get_governance_scorecard or get_governance_scores that report scores rather than run policy screens.

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 final sentence gives explicit trigger conditions ('governance compliance, policy screening, institutional governance standards, or market-wide governance scanning'), which is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming a specific alternative sibling or stating when NOT to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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