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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only operation, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, requires no authentication, or has no side effects. For a simple policy retrieval, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording, and the key details (operating, payment, upstream-rights policy) are front-loaded.

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 tool with no parameters and a simple read-only nature, the description adequately explains what is returned. It does not detail the exact structure of the policy, but that may be unnecessary since the description itself defines the content.

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 input schema has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. It correctly focuses on the return value instead.

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 explicitly states a specific verb ('Return'), a resource ('GhostKey's operating, payment, and upstream-rights policy'), and an intended audience ('for autonomous agents'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ghostkey_catalog or ghostkey_status, which are likely different resource types.

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 description implies that this tool is used when an agent needs policy-related information, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer that it is for policy lookups only.

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