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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: evaluation happens against the live record, require_active defaults to true, and the response carries reasons for denial. Return-format detail is partly redundant against the output schema, keeping this from a 5.

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 plus an example, all front-loaded and free of filler; the action and return are stated before the parameter list. The field enumeration is dense but each item earns its place since the schema itself is undocumented.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the action, all policy knobs, defaults, and the allow/deny outcome. The only real omission is routing guidance relative to the sibling KYA tools, which keeps it short of perfect.

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%, so the description must carry the burden and it does: it names every policy subfield (min_level, require_active, min_grade, max_open_complaints, require_classes, require_domain, min_tenure_days), states the default for require_active, and supplies a concrete call showing the agent identifier format and sample policy values.

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 phrase ('Allow or deny an agent against a relying-party policy') and enumerates the policy dimensions evaluated, so the resource and action are unmistakable. It does not, however, contrast itself with the nearby kya_lookup and kya_verify siblings, leaving the agent to infer which of the three to reach for.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'evaluated on the live record' framing and made concrete by the inline example call, which shows a realistic invocation. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over kya_lookup/kya_verify or of any prerequisites, so guidance stops at implied.

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