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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful provenance — answers are sourced from the company's own help page and stamped with the date checked — but says nothing about behavior when a company has no policy on file, coverage gaps, or error/lookup semantics.

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?

One sentence with no filler, but it opens with an example-list rather than the action, so the essential 'returns a company's policy' framing arrives late. 'Exceptions and catches' is also near-duplicative, costing a little density.

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 carries the burden of describing return content, and it does: components, source, and freshness are all named. Only the not-found / partial-coverage case is unaddressed, which keeps it short of full completeness for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'company' parameter is documented with an example format ("Netflix", "best-buy"). The description adds no further meaning about accepted name/slug forms or lookup tolerance, so the schema does all the work — the expected baseline.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns for a single company: cancellation/return steps, deadlines, fees, exceptions, plus source and last-checked date. The 'one company' scope implied by the examples separates it from compare_return_windows and list_policy_changes, though the phrasing is a noun clause about return content rather than an explicit 'retrieves the policy for...' verb.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it should call this when it needs a concrete policy for one named company. There is no statement of when to prefer compare_return_windows (multi-company comparison) or list_policy_changes (recent updates), and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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