List federated decision, policy, plan and BYUM governance metadata

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotenceHint, and safe operation, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: partial results never claim completeness, unconfigured/ unreadable/invalid registry statuses are reported, data is loaded only via the canonical PolicyRegistry API, and BYUM rows remain advisory pointers that are never dereferenced. This goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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 dense but efficiently organized, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence and then layering caveats and non-behaviors. Every sentence carries unique information; there is minimal repetition of the schema or annotations.

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?

The tool aggregates three distinct sources with nuanced results (available, unconfigured, unreadable, invalid; honest zero) and the description fully explains these semantics. It also addresses what is not projected and what side effects are absent, which is exactly the context needed given there is no output schema.

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?

All four parameters are already documented in the schema with defaults and descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, such as how limits interact across the three registries or what the status values like OFFEN mean in context.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Returns one read-only, allowlist-only metadata view' across three named sources. It sharply distinguishes the tool's scope by listing exactly what is not projected and what the tool never does.

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 read-only, listing-oriented framing makes it clear this is the governance-metadata inspection tool rather than a mutation tool like apply_governance. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools such as list_registries, but the source-specific wording provides clear context for when it applies.

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