Get Organization Governance Status

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses substantial non-obvious behavior: fields are derived, not stored, so empty input yields empty/default values rather than fabricated data; and org_id/plan/usage reflect a live org record only on the hosted transport and are absent on self-hosted stdio. This is exactly the transport- and data-provenance context an agent needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries a distinct, non-redundant fact (data provenance on one side, transport differences on the other). The two long sentences are dense but not padded; slightly more structure would aid scanning.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of explaining what the returned fields mean and when they will or won't be present across transports, which is the key completeness concern for this 6-parameter tool. It falls short only in not describing the shape/labels of the rollup that will be returned.

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 coverage is only 17%, so the description must carry weight. It enumerates the conceptual inputs (model grades, active frameworks, open incidents, budget usage, drift alerts), covering most required-meaning parameters, but adds no format, range, or default detail and never addresses org_name, so it only partially compensates.

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?

"Compute a structured governance status rollup" states a specific verb (compute) and resource (governance status rollup), clearly telling the agent what is produced. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings like rai_health, rai_executive_summary, or rai_trust_score, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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 description implies usage by explaining that the health/grade/compliance fields are derived from caller-supplied metrics, nudging the agent to pass metrics in. But it names no alternative tools and gives no explicit 'use this when X, use Y instead' routing despite a crowded sibling set.

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