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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, lowering the bar. The description adds genuine context beyond annotations by specifying exactly what state is read (self-key enrollment, quotas, stop rules) and clarifying the operations it will not perform. No contradiction with annotations.

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 zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the negative list adds meaningful clarification without padding. Every word earns its place.

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?

Complete for a zero-parameter read tool whose annotations carry the full safety profile. The description tells the agent what it reads, what it explicitly does not do, and the sibling names indicate where to go for resource-level operations. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing the description must document. Baseline 4 applies for parameter-free tools; no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 (Read) and a well-scoped resource: 'self-key enrollment state, finite quotas and stop rules.' The title reinforces it as a read of the access policy. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings trustverum_list_resources and trustverum_read_resource, which operate at the resource level rather than the access-policy level.

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?

Provides clear context on scope via a negative list ('Does not enroll, create sessions, sign messages, or contact operators'), which helps an agent know what this tool is NOT for. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state conditions for when to choose this over trustverum_read_resource, so the routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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