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

With no annotations provided, the description shoulders the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is 'Free' and emphasizes full transparency ('Nothing hidden'), which gives the agent confidence about scope and cost. However, it does not explicitly confirm a read-only nature, although the zero-parameter design makes side effects impossible.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that immediately convey cost, scope, and completeness. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important information ('full built-in policy') is front-loaded.

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 simple, parameterless informational tool, the description is fully complete: it explains what is included (tiers, rules, conditions, rationale) and explicitly addresses transparency. No output schema or complex behaviors require further clarification.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description adds useful context about what the tool returns instead of needing to describe parameters.

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 that this tool exposes the complete built-in policy, including every tier, rule, condition, and rationale. It distinguishes itself from siblings like policy_check and policy_example by emphasizing 'full' and 'every', making the resource scope explicit.

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 phrase 'Nothing about how a verdict is reached is hidden' implies use this tool when you need the complete policy rationale, as opposed to simply checking a verdict or viewing an example. While it does not name alternatives explicitly, the context is clear enough.

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