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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the scope of content returned, which is modest value, but says nothing about whether this is static published text, whether the locale affects the policy body or just names/links, or how fresh the content is.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by the use case. Efficient, though the parenthetical about the emailed install link and QR code is detail that sits awkwardly inside a purpose statement and slightly bloats it.

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 one-optional-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns, which topics it answers, and its safety profile via annotations. Nothing blocking remains before a correct call.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'locale' enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default. The description never mentions locale or how language selection interacts with the returned policies, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured field — the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get SimoraGo's published policies') and then enumerates the exact policy domains covered: refunds/cancellation, eSIM delivery/installation, payment checks, and device compatibility. That enumeration cleanly separates it from siblings like search_plans, get_plan, get_checkout_link and check_coverage, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

'Use it for questions about refunds, installing or activating the eSIM, or whether a phone will work' gives concrete triggering conditions rather than implied usage. It lacks any explicit exclusion or pointer to a sibling (e.g. 'for plan pricing use search_plans'), so routing away from this tool is left to inference.

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