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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the return is full text in markdown format, which is not conveyed by annotations. It does not disclose other behaviors like localization effects, but with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, this is adequate.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose (full text of a policy) and immediately lists the valid values. There is zero redundancy or fluff, and every word contributes to understanding.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the return format (markdown) and the allowed policy types. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly mention the locale parameter's role, but that is fully documented in the schema, so the description is sufficient 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?

Schema coverage is 50% because only the 'locale' parameter has a description; 'policy' is just an enum with no explanation. The tool description compensates by listing the allowed policy values, which adds meaning to the 'policy' parameter. However, it does not clarify the 'locale' parameter's effect on the returned text, though the schema does provide a detailed description for it.

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 the tool's function: retrieving the full markdown text of a store policy, and enumerates the exact policy types (delivery, returns, payment-options, faqs, contact). This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are unrelated (e.g., get_product, list_categories).

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 description implicitly communicates when to use the tool by listing the policy types, making it obvious that this is the go-to for any policy text. There are no sibling tools with a similar purpose, so no alternative routing is needed. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when...' or mention any exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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