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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns authority ceilings, consideration limits, human-review requirements, and supported behavior, and it distinguishes a missing policy from an unavailable service. This helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 three focused sentences, with the primary verb and resource front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no repetition of schema or annotation details.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates the returned policy dimensions and error-relevant behavior. Combined with the annotations, this gives an agent enough to call the tool and interpret its result.

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 already fully describes the only parameter, 'domain', with 100% coverage. The description adds some context with 'domain or its delegated Steward' but provides no new format or value constraints, so it stays at the baseline.

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 names a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('canonical Contribution Exchange policy'), and the valid targets ('a domain or its delegated Steward'). It also lists what the tool returns, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like exchange_preflight and exchange_get_signal.

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 explicitly states that the tool is read-only and does not perform preflight evaluation, which tells an agent when not to use it. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of fully explicit routing guidance.

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