governance_360

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses the entire pipeline, including verifying signature+hash, checking terms, and creating a signed access receipt (a side effect). However, it does not explicitly mention failure modes (e.g., what happens if verification fails) or whether any persistent state is written beyond the receipt, so it is not fully transparent but is reasonably clear.

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 concise sentences with a clear arrow-delimited pipeline. Every word earns its place, and the high-level flow is front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.

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 7-parameter composite tool with no output schema, the description explains the high-level workflow but omits return value format, error handling (e.g., what happens on signature mismatch), and any postconditions beyond creating a receipt. This is a meaningful gap for a tool called on every page read, though the pipeline itself is well described.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds pipeline context that implies roles (html/contentBody for extraction/hash, keys for signing, intendedUsage for terms, sourceUrl for provenance), but it doesn't provide per-parameter semantic detail beyond what the schema gives. 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 uses a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('HTML content') and clearly outlines a multi-step pipeline: extract governance block → verify signature + content hash → check usage terms → create signed access receipt. This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that perform only individual steps, making its composite purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use this tool: 'This is what an agent calls on every page it reads.' This provides clear contextual guidance and implies that for the full governance loop, this composite tool is the default instead of calling individual sibling tools like verify_governance_block or create_access_receipt separately.

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