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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that policies are created disabled, requires the 'policies:write' scope, and explains the action enum semantics (e.g., 'redact masks PII'). These are meaningful behavioral traits not present in the schema or annotations.

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 four sentences, each adding value: purpose, safety note, workflow, and parameter/scope details. No redundant or vague phrasing; all content is directly actionable.

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?

The tool has a complex optional `context` parameter, but the description focuses on the core create workflow, required scope, and action semantics. It does not describe the response return value or elaborate on optional conditions; however, the key steps (create→get→update) are covered. Given the complexity, slightly more detail could be added, but it's largely complete for a create tool.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It explains `toolPattern` (glob over tool names) and `action` (allow/deny/require_approval/redact with redact semantics), but does not cover the other six parameters (name, context, priority, riskThreshold, signalCategory, enforcementMode). This partial coverage earns a mid-range score.

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 clearly states 'Create an outbound governance policy' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like axiorank_get_policy, axiorank_update_policy, and axiorank_list_policies. The workflow references make its unique role explicit.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use this tool ('Create') versus siblings: 'Review it (axiorank_get_policy) then enable it with axiorank_update_policy.' It also explains the safety rationale for creating policies disabled, giving clear context on usage intent.

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