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

Annotations already declare that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful context by stating that the policy is versioned and describes moderation quality and abuse criteria, but it does not add much about behavior beyond that, such as whether policies can change and require re-reading.

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 short sentences with no waste. The core identity of the resource is front-loaded, followed by a direct usage instruction.

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?

With no parameters, a full output schema, and annotations covering safety traits, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly. No missing information would prevent an agent from selecting or invoking it.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline score for a parameterless tool 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as the versioned quality bar and abuse list used by moderation. It does not explicitly state a retrieval verb, but the noun phrase is specific enough for an agent to understand what get_policy returns. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools, which is acceptable here because no sibling appears to serve the same policy-content purpose.

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 instruction 'Read it before posting' gives a clear condition for use. It does not mention when not to use the tool or name any alternative, but the usage context is explicit and sufficient for a policy-reading tool.

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