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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Check action vectors' only suggests some kind of read-style check and does not explain whether it returns a boolean, raises on violations, has side effects, or handles malformed input. This is effectively no behavioral disclosure.

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 text is short and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. A single generic sentence does not provide enough substance for a usable tool definition.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must explain what the caller should expect, but it only names the input theme. It omits the relationship to risk policy, the return behavior, and any edge cases, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The schema provides only the property name 'action_vector' and the type 'array'; schema description coverage is 0%. The description merely repeats the phrase 'action vectors' without explaining the array's elements, format, constraints, or meaning. The agent gains no additional information beyond the property name.

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 generic action ('Check') and a resource ('action vectors') but does not explicitly tie it to risk policy or say what the check determines. Among sibling verify_* tools, there is no differentiation from verify_embedding_policy or verify_liquidity_invariant. It is more than a tautology, but still vague.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use verify_risk_policy versus alternatives like check_threat_blacklist, verify_embedding_policy, or verify_liquidity_invariant. The intended use case must be inferred entirely from the tool name, not from the description.

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