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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden alone. It does usefully disclose the return shape (latest version, enforcement and org rule counts) and a deterministic ordering contract, which is real behavioural value. It does not mention pagination, permissions, or side-effect profile, which a no-annotation definition ideally would.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause carries information the agent would otherwise have to discover by calling. The trailing clause is dense but not padded; no wasted wording.

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 is simple (one optional parameter, no annotations, no output schema), and the description compensates for the missing output schema by describing what each entry includes and how entries are ordered. Only the absence of any guidance on volume or pagination keeps this from a 5.

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% and the single optional `organisation` parameter is explained there in detail, including OAuth and API-key scoping. The description adds only the possessive "the organisation's" and no syntax or default guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Lists the organisation's policy packs") and even names the ordering rule (Spellwarden baseline first), which lets an agent tell it apart from the other list_* siblings without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling for contrast, but no sibling covers policy packs, so the ambiguity risk is low.

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 by the verb "Lists"; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus export_policy_pack or get_organisation, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. An agent can infer this is the discovery step, but it has to do that inference itself.

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