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

The description goes beyond the minimal annotations by disclosing persistence ('Policies persist until explicitly deleted'), error behavior ('Duplicate policy names return an error'), and return value ('Returns the created policy with its ID and active status'). These details add significant context beyond the annotations, which only provide basic hints. However, it doesn't mention potential authorization requirements or the interaction of multiple policies, so it's not fully comprehensive.

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 uses six short, informative sentences with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage, persistence, error handling, and return value. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no padding or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return value details are covered separately. The description explains prerequisite ('Call this before using guardrail_check'), persistence, error condition, and return behavior. It lacks specifics on how multiple policies are evaluated together, but given the priority parameter in the schema and the companion guardrail_check tool, this is a minor gap. Overall, the description provides enough context for correct usage.

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%, meaning all parameters have descriptions. The description adds a high-level summary of rule syntax ('Define rules using and/or/not operators over action types, resource patterns, and budget thresholds'), but the schema already provides detailed examples for each parameter. Thus the description adds marginal value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 'Create a persistent governance policy' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly explains that guardrail_check evaluates the policy on subsequent calls, distinguishing it from sibling tools like guardrail_check itself, which presumably evaluates policies. The tool's role as a policy creator is unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this before using guardrail_check — checks require at least one active policy.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool relative to its sibling, and the note about duplicate policy names returning an error also informs the agent to avoid name collisions. This is clear and actionable.

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