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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly discloses that the operation is non-mutating and reports allowed/blocked/why, which is meaningful. However it omits auth/permission requirements, rate limits, or how the verdict is derived, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the key non-mutation guarantee. Nothing is wasted and there is no redundancy.

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 and no annotations, the description responsibly names what is returned (allowed, blocked, why) and confirms the call is side-effect free. That covers the essentials for a two-parameter read-style tool; only permission/edge-case behavior is left unstated.

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 100%, so both parameters (domain, profile_id) are already well documented in the schema, including the hint to use list_profiles for IDs. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Check') on a specific resource ('profile policy for a domain') and even states the outcome shape (allowed, blocked, why). It is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like create_rule or delete_rule, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Check what the profile policy would do for a domain right now' clearly frames this as a dry-run/preview, and 'Does not change anything' signals when to prefer it over the mutating rule tools. No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, but the intent is unambiguous.

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