Generate Executive Governance Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it reveals this is a multi-source aggregation/synthesis step rather than a single-source read, and it describes the output shape (RAG status indicators), which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Minor redundancy between 'board-ready' and 'C-suite-readable', but otherwise every sentence carries information.

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?

For a 12-parameter, no-required-argument tool with no output schema, the description does explain the report contents, which partially substitutes for a return-value spec. It leaves the biggest gap unaddressed: whether the caller must supply the metrics or the tool derives them, and what the 10 undocumented numeric parameters mean.

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 only 17% (2 of 12 parameters documented), so the description is expected to compensate — and it does not mention a single parameter. Names like avg_trust_score, compliance_score, monthly_budget_usd and models_evaluated are left entirely to inference, with no indication of units, ownership, or whether they are pulled automatically versus supplied by the caller.

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 (Generate), a specific resource (executive AI governance summary), and enumerates the inputs it synthesises (trust grades, compliance posture, cost intelligence, risk incidents, drift trends). The C-suite/board framing implicitly separates it from technical siblings like rai_audit_summary or rai_org_status.

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?

Gives clear situational context — 'Used by CAIO for quarterly board reporting' — which tells the agent the audience and cadence. It does not, however, name an alternative sibling or state when NOT to use it (e.g. ad-hoc technical reporting via rai_audit_summary).

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