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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: responses are IR-team-submitted and only *approved* ones are surfaced, which tells the agent the dataset is a curated subset rather than a raw feed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then purpose context and usage triggers. The long parenthetical list of governance flag areas is informative but slightly heavy; otherwise there is no waste.

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 a single fully-documented parameter, complete annotations, and an output schema carrying return details, the description covers what, whose perspective, and when to call it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (ticker) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no ticker-specific semantics (e.g. exchange or case sensitivity), so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Get approved governance flag responses submitted by a company's IR team') and clarifies the perspective is the company's own response rather than raw flag data. It enumerates the covered flag areas (GRS components, remuneration compliance, proxy advisory, board effectiveness, activist vulnerability), which helps distinguish it from the sibling flag tools, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Two concrete triggering scenarios are given: when asked about a company's response to governance concerns, and when presenting governance flags alongside company perspective. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative tool, so it stops short of the top band.

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