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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent. Description adds context about the content (policy details) and notes 'No inputs,' which is consistent with read-only behavior. No side effects mentioned, but not required given 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. No fluff.

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 read-only tool, the description covers the purpose and output. However, the contradiction about inputs creates a gap, and the response_format parameter is not mentioned in prose. Overall adequate but not complete.

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 documents one parameter with a clear description. However, the tool description says 'No inputs,' which contradicts the schema's parameter. This misleads agents into thinking no parameters exist and adds no semantic value.

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 'Returns' and names the resource (platform policies) and the specific outputs (research-use-only boundary, prohibited uses, allowed/blocked lists). Clearly distinct from sibling tools like catalog or evidence lookup.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The title implies policy lookup, but no 'when' or 'when not' is mentioned. Sibling tools are listed but not contrasted.

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