Governance Check (HR lens)

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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently portrays a read-only review action. It adds behavioral context by listing the checklist dimensions, the escalation flag, and the decision path. It also discloses that it doesn't replace committee ToR, which is useful. No contradictions or hidden side effects are described.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence is dense with checklist items and outputs, which is somewhat heavy but informative. It earns a 4 because the density is purposeful and avoids fluff, though the checklist enumeration could be trimmed.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's return value: a recommendation path, risk classification, checklist, and escalation flag. It also situates the tool within a governance process and points to a complementary tool. For a 2-param review tool, this is comprehensive.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the tool description doesn't need to repeat them. It only loosely references 'use case' in the opening sentence, without adding new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 the tool reviews AI or people-data use cases against governance dimensions, with specific outputs like risk tier, checklist, and recommendation path. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on governance (not ethics) and explicitly references assess-ethics as a complementary tool.

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?

It provides clear usage context: use for governance review of AI/data use cases, and explicitly recommends pairing with assess-ethics. It also notes the tool complements rather than replaces committee ToR, giving a boundary. However, it doesn't enumerate explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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