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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the privacy-relevant fact that no personal data is accepted, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as auth needs or rate limits.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, and the key input constraint efficiently.

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?

This is a simple, low-risk read-only tool with an optional locale parameter and an output schema. The description covers purpose, scope, and privacy constraints; annotations cover safety; and the output schema covers return shape. Nothing important 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 only parameter, locale, is fully defined by its enum and default in the schema, so an agent can invoke it correctly. However, the description does not mention locale at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. The negative constraint about personal data adds some context but does not compensate fully for the missing locale explanation.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Return the public route-qualification policy'. It names a specific resource and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly excluding address, ZIP, location, or other personal data.

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 gives clear context: this is for the public policy, not for personalized route qualification involving personal data. It does not name an alternative sibling tool explicitly, which prevents a 5, but the intended usage is clear.

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