governance_score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own: it doesn't explain what a 'chapter' is, how the score is scaled, whether extra data needs to be loaded first, or whether results are cached or point-in-time.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, and the key scoping detail (overall and by chapter) comes early. The trade-off is that it is so terse that it reads as a label rather than an explanation of the tool.

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 only two parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the structured fields cover most of what an agent needs. What is still missing is a distinction from the sibling governance tool and some indication of what 'chapter' refers to, which matters for interpreting the returned breakdown.

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 'year' documented as a reference year of 2018+ and 'company' accepting cd_cvm, CNPJ, or name, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds nothing about how the parameters affect the result, which is the expected baseline here.

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 names a specific resource — adoption rate of recommended governance practices, broken down overall and by chapter — so an agent knows what data comes back. It stops short of distinguishing this from the sibling tool governance_practices, which sounds closely related and could easily be confused with it.

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 and no mention of when not to use it. The agent is left to infer the choice between governance_score and governance_practices purely from the names, with no exclusions or preconditions stated.

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