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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the composition semantics — the result is a merge of baseline, plan policy, tenant policy, person's profile, guidance level, plus tenant guidance text — which tells the agent the output is derived, not stored, and will change as those layers change.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then why it exists. The long enumeration of policy facets is not padding — it substitutes for the absent output schema, so every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by listing the returned facets and explaining how they are assembled from the policy layers. Combined with the annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it with no arguments 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?

Zero parameters with an empty schema, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies the tool is implicitly scoped to the calling user and plan rather than accepting selectors.

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 concrete verb+resource ('returns the policy in force for this user and plan') and then enumerates exactly what the policy covers (tools, applications, environments, business rules, limits, time window). No sibling tool in the list returns policy, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from about_connector, list_applications, or point_of_view.

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 two explicit triggering scenarios: explaining why a call was refused and checking what is allowed before proposing a change. It never names an alternative tool or a when-not condition, but the usage context is concrete enough that an agent knows when to reach for it.

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