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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about what 'generate' produces behaviorally — whether a stored document is created, whether it is written to a location, or whether repeated calls regenerate or reuse output — which is exactly the context annotations can't supply.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Brevity here is not padding, though the sentence is too thin to earn a top score.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a single-required-param export tool the description leaves the parameter meaning and format-choice rationale entirely unaddressed, which is not enough to invoke confidently.

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 0%: policyId carries only pattern/length constraints and no description. The description never mentions policyId, so the agent gets no guidance on what identifier is expected (policy id vs. version vs. workspace) — a clear compensation gap for a single required parameter.

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 specific verb (Generate) and resource (a policy Word document), and the 'Word' qualifier implicitly separates it from export_policy_pdf / export_sop_pdf siblings. It never explicitly names the alternative format tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No statement of when to choose Word over the sibling PDF export (export_policy_pdf) or when to use export_sop_word instead. The agent must infer format preference from the tool name alone.

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