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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that content is live from the deployed backend, that no-arg returns an overview vs. rule_type returning one grammar, and that fail-closed semantics apply. It does not describe return size, pagination, or error behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and use, and most sentences earn their place by routing the agent. However it is a single dense paragraph that folds in a vocabulary-mapping clause and a long workflow-prose list, which slightly bloats it beyond the core message.

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?

Given a single optional param, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, the two call modes, when to use it, the disambiguation from docs/CLI terminology, and where to find workflow prose. Nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the two calling modes (no arguments = overview; rule_type = full grammar for one type) and giving an example value. It does not enumerate valid rule_type values, which would earn a 5.

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 resource (the authoritative grammar of Alter's runtime-policy language) with its scope (every authorable rule type with JSON body schema, caps, levels, examples, fail-closed semantics). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like fetch_doc or get_operation_schema purely from this text, since it names the exact artifact it returns.

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?

Explicitly says to call it before authoring rules with `alter policy rules create` and to never guess a body shape, and it names alternatives (fetch_doc guides, get_started phase=modify) plus an exclusion (code_owner rules are changed through their file, never with rules update). This is when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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