governance_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses parallel execution via asyncio.gather for 5 domains and the rule of not calling individual tools. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe return format, though an output schema exists. Some behavioral aspects are implied but not fully detailed.

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 description is efficiently structured with clear sections (desc, when, rule, ref). Each sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded. No superfluous words, making it concise and well-organized.

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?

Given the complexity of integrating 5 domains and the existence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: parallel execution, prerequisite, and prohibition of individual tools. It is mostly complete for an orchestration tool, though it could explicitly mention that the operation is read-only and safe.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the ticker parameter by indicating it is required, but does not explain the format parameter beyond its default value 'md'. No allowed values or additional semantics are provided, leaving much meaning undocumented.

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 clearly states it produces a comprehensive governance report integrating 5 domains (AGM, OWN, DIV, PRX, VUP). It uses specific verb 'report' and resource 'governance', and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating that this tool alone is sufficient and individual domain tools should not be called additionally.

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 explicitly provides when to use (to understand entire governance at once) and when not to use individual domain tools. It also specifies a prerequisite: execute after corp_identifier. Alternatives are referenced but disallowed, making usage context very clear.

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