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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds modest context by identifying the document as a specific policy artifact (AP-POL-7), but discloses nothing further about content, caching, or freshness.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the identification of the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the second sentence is terse enough to be slightly cryptic.

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 zero-param, read-only document getter with annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly sufficient. The one gap is that, absent an output schema, it does not say what is returned (e.g., policy text vs. structured rules), leaving the agent to discover the shape on first call.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; per the baseline for a 0-param tool this scores 4. No parameter explanation is needed or expected.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and a specific resource (the AP exception policy), even supplying a document identifier (AP-POL-7). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling lookups like get_exception or get_invoice, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

'Read it before deciding' implies the tool should be consulted before adjudicating exceptions, which is genuinely useful guidance. However, it never names which decisions or sibling tools (approve_invoice, reject_invoice, escalate_exception) it should precede, so the routing is left to inference.

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