governance_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, and the output schema documents the return payload the description is enumerating. What remains undisclosed is genuinely behavioral: the time window implied by 'so far' (since process start? since deployment? rolling window?), whether counters reset, and whether the tool is per-instance or global. Those gaps matter for a metrics tool and are not covered by any structured field.

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 line with no padding, which is good, but it is a colon-led fragment rather than a complete sentence — there is no lead verb to anchor the metric list. Front-loading is fine; the grammatical incompleteness slightly undercuts immediate comprehension.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with a full output schema and clear annotations, most of the burden is already carried by structured fields, and the description correctly avoids restating return values in detail. The only substantive omission is the scope of 'so far' and its relationship to the other observability siblings.

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?

With zero parameters there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, so the baseline applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless snapshot call rather than a filtered query, which is consistent with the empty schema.

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 lists the metrics exposed ('verdicts, lag (mean, p95), share on time, share skipped') but never states a verb or object — it is a noun-phrase fragment, not a statement that this tool reports governance telemetry. An agent can infer it is a read-only status/metrics endpoint, but it is not distinguished from siblings such as recent_decisions or decision_matrix, which could plausibly return overlapping information.

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 guidance on when to call this versus recent_decisions (which likely also surfaces verdicts) or decision_matrix. No prerequisites, no mention of whether the call is cheap, cacheable, or safe to poll repeatedly, and no exclusions. The agent must guess its place in the sibling set.

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