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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral context is that the listed policies are the ones accepted by POST /v1/verify; it says nothing about return shape, whether the list is static or environment-dependent, or how query filtering behaves.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded immediately after the verb. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of hinting at return values, and it does not say whether the response is a flat list of policy identifiers or richer objects. For a no-argument read-only catalog call this is adequate but leaves an unnecessary gap an agent cannot fill elsewhere.

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 nominally 100% and the tool has a single optional parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the free-form 'query' bag (unspecified property names, anyOf string/number/boolean), leaving the agent no guidance on what query keys are meaningful.

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 and resource ('List the supported verification policies') and adds scope by tying the result to the POST /v1/verify endpoint, which separates it from unrelated list tools. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors such as affix_verify_reason_codes, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'usable in POST /v1/verify' implies the correct moment to call this (discovering accepted policy values before invoking affix_verify), but no when-not condition or named alternative is given. Usage must be inferred from the endpoint reference.

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