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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the scoring scale (0-100), RAG semantics, and per-policy detail, but nothing about freshness, caching, or auth requirements, and output schema already documents the return shape.

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 rating scheme are front-loaded well, but the 15-item enumeration of policy areas consumes most of the text and largely duplicates what the returned assessments and output schema will show. It is informative yet bulkier than needed.

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 an output schema present, the return values need not be restated, and the description still covers scope, rating method, and use cases adequately. The one real hole is the absence of differentiation from near-identical governance siblings.

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 is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('NZX ticker symbol'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds only the 'per-company' framing, which is implicit in the schema example; 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Get a per-company governance scorecard with RAG ratings') and enumerates the 15 policy areas covered, so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similarly named sibling get_governance_scores or check_governance_policy, leaving an ambiguity an agent must resolve elsewhere.

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 names three usage contexts (governance due diligence, board briefings, benchmarking), which implies when to reach for it. But there are no exclusions and no routing among the many governance siblings (get_governance_scores, get_governance_deterioration, check_governance_policy), which is the primary selection risk here.

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