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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds useful context: it discloses what is deliberately NOT returned (documents, uploads, claims, coverage advice) and what fields are returned, which annotations cannot express.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the read-only listing action, followed by scope exclusions and return fields. The negative enumeration is a bit list-heavy but every clause adds boundary information.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description supplies what the structured fields cannot: the returned fields (policy reference, type, insurer, dates) and the explicit exclusion set. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 and the description correctly describes it as a parameterless listing operation. Nothing to compensate for, so the baseline of 4 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?

States a specific verb (list) plus resource (policies) and constrains scope to home, car and business insurance. The exclusion list sharpens the boundary, though the overlap with sibling get_renewals (renewal dates are named here too) leaves some ambiguity about which sibling to pick.

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?

Gives clear when-not guidance by enumerating out-of-scope domains (health policies, documents, uploads, claims, coverage advice). It stops short of explicitly naming get_renewals as the alternative for renewal-focused queries, which is the one remaining routing gap.

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