governance_practices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: no mention of the optional adopted/chapter filters, row limits, or what 'explain-or-comply' means for coverage gaps (practices not explained vs. not adopted).

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?

A single economical sentence with the key concept front-loaded. It is not padded, though for a five-parameter tool with filtering capability it is arguably too terse rather than too long.

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?

Output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so return-value and read-only details need not be repeated. The remaining gap is the absence of any filter/usage hint for the three optional parameters, which keeps this a 4 rather than higher.

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 100%, with every parameter documented including enum-like values for 'adopted' and a chapter example. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

Names a specific resource ('Explain-or-comply governance report') and states its content shape ('each practice and whether it was adopted'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling governance_score (a score, not a per-practice report). It never explicitly contrasts with that sibling, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to pick governance_score instead, and no prerequisites (e.g., company must be resolvable first via resolve/search_company). The agent is left to infer all routing decisions.

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