Check AI inventory for governance gaps

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: output is non-authorizing with authority_effect NONE, results are bucketed by severity, and a sample path exists. It stops short of describing pagination or how findings are structured.

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 compact sentences, with the core action front-loaded before the sample-mode hint and the non-authorization caveat. Nothing is padding, though the parenthetical 'toolkit template columns' is somewhat redundant with the schema and the sentence is dense enough to be slightly hard to scan.

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 return values need no prose explanation, and the description still covers the two input modes, the expected CSV shape, and the non-authorizing nature of the result. What remains missing is only minor: no explicit routing guidance against sibling tools.

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 all three parameters, including the CSV column list, the 1 MB limit, and the ISO 8601 evaluation_time format. The description restates use_sample and the CSV template columns without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 gives a specific verb+resource: run policy-as-code checks from the Global AI Governance toolkit against an AI system inventory CSV, returning findings by severity. That is concrete and unambiguous. It does not, however, contrast itself with the siblings build_decision_pack or validate_passport, so an agent gets no explicit differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the described scenario (governance gap checking on an inventory) and the description notes 'Set use_sample=true to run the synthetic sample', which tells the agent one operating mode. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to validate_passport or build_decision_pack, and no stated prerequisites for the CSV.

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