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

The annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description usefully adds the organization-API-key auth requirement. It still does not say whether re-defining a policy with an existing name replaces or merges with the prior one, which for an idempotent write tool would be the most valuable remaining detail.

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 the tool's purpose, then the auth prerequisite. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 required and annotations carrying the mutation/idempotency profile, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, and auth. It remains slightly short on lifecycle behavior — namely overwrite vs. create semantics for a policy name that already exists.

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%, with each parameter documented (including the 2..officers bound on 'required'). The description restates the meaning of officer_wallets and required but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 gives a specific verb and resource (define a Two-Person Integrity policy) plus the two governing attributes (approver set, required approval count), so the agent knows exactly what this tool configures. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely named sibling approval_policy_set, leaving a real ambiguity unaddressed.

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?

'Requires the organization API key' is a genuine prerequisite that tells the agent a credential is needed. Beyond that, there is no when-to-use guidance and no indication of how this differs from approval_policy_set or the other fortress_tpi_* tools, so selection is left to inference.

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