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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals only that the returned policy is 'active' and 'signed' (i.e., not a draft or older version); it says nothing about permission requirements, whether the agent scope falls back to a default, or behavior when no policy exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core resource stated first and the optional scope relegated to a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though it is terse to the point of under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and this is a simple two-param read tool whose both params are at least named. The remaining gap is the absence of any annotation substitute for behavior and access requirements.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does map both params conceptually: 'owner' as the required subject and 'agent scope' as the optional agent_id. It adds no format, identifier, or default-value detail beyond that, leaving meaningful gaps at 0% coverage.

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 (View) and a precise resource ('active signed payment policy'), and the '(and optionally an agent scope)' clause narrows what is fetched. An agent can largely distinguish it from get_policy_versions (history) and set_policy (write), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'active signed' suggests this is the current-policy read as opposed to get_policy_versions or the write tools. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, so an agent must infer the routing.

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