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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds context about the content ('policy, version, voting thresholds, recovery hints') and the recommended usage ('before taking group decisions'). It could add more detail about what 'read' implies (e.g., no side effects), but annotations cover that. The description would benefit from noting that it's a read-only operation that doesn't modify state, but it's not contradictory.

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 concise, a single sentence that front-loads the scope and purpose. It efficiently communicates the resource and the intended use. The sentence is compact with no wasted words, earning a high score. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format, but it's structurally well-organized.

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 simple read-only tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose and usage context. The output schema likely defines the return structure, so the description needn't explain that. Given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It could mention that it returns the policy document itself, but that's inferred. A high score is justified.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description mentions 'policy' and 'voting thresholds', which may map to the detail parameter's enum options if get_space_policy has such detail levels, but the schema doesn't show that (the enum is on a different tool's schema). The description adds value by implying that the tool returns policy content, but it doesn't explain the meaning of the id parameter beyond what the schema says. Since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description's mention of specific attributes adds a small bonus.

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 states a specific verb ('read') and resource ('policy'), and lists the specific attributes (policy, version, voting thresholds, recovery hints) that the tool retrieves. It clearly distinguishes it from update_space_policy (write operation) and get_space (which likely returns general space info). The description's mention of 'before taking group decisions' also hints at its role in the governance workflow.

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 implies usage context ('before taking group decisions'), which is clear enough to indicate when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention any conditions where another tool should be used instead (e.g., get_space for broader details). It provides context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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