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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by scoping the content: operating, payment, upstream-rights, browser-session and trusted-device policy, telling the agent what it will actually get back. It stops short of describing format, length, or whether the policy is versioned/cached.

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 the verb front-loaded and no filler; every clause names a distinct policy area that adds information.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately conveys what the call returns via the enumerated policy domains. A brief note on the shape of the response (e.g., a structured policy document) would close the remaining gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no schema gap to compensate for.

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?

Specific verb 'Return' plus a named resource ('GhostKey's ... policy') and an enumeration of the five policy domains covered. This clearly separates it from action-oriented siblings like ghostkey_session_create or ghostkey_quote, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with ghostkey_catalog or ghostkey_status, which also sound informational.

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?

'For autonomous agents' implies the intended consumer and hints the policy should be consulted as operating rules, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus ghostkey_status or ghostkey_catalog, and no prerequisites or ordering guidance.

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