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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool reveals configuration details including the critical indeterminate-attempt behavior, which is richer context than the annotations alone provide. There is no contradiction, but no additional operational side effects are described.

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 with no fluff: the first lists the key returned information, and the second gives a clear usage directive. The most important detail (indeterminate attempt behavior) is emphasized, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with full annotation coverage, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, what the key decision-relevant field is, and when to call it. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently sketches the returned information without needing to define a formal structure.

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 schema description for effect_type is already thorough—it explains the naming pattern, examples, and that policy is configured per type, giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds the high-level meaning ('how this workspace has configured a given effect type') but does not need to elaborate further since the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 clearly states a specific verbo-object pair: 'Shows how this workspace has configured a given effect type,' and enumerates the exact content of the policy (allowed, lease, attempt ceiling, spend limits, indeterminate behavior). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the policy-specific content leaves little ambiguity about what this tool uniquely returns.

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?

The instruction 'Check this before designing a retry strategy' gives a concrete and actionable context for when the tool should be invoked. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough to steer an agent to this tool at the right time.

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