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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, it discloses that expectations are checker-derived, nothing is stored, and a pass grants no execution authority. It also explains that the generated test subsequently replays the regression against the Check API, clarifying an important runtime behavior.

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?

Four compact sentences front-load the operation and outputs, then efficiently cover expectation provenance, persistence, and authority. Although the opening sentence is dense, every clause contributes useful scope or behavioral information and there is no filler.

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?

Despite the complex nested inputs and absence of an output schema, the description identifies the source operation, supported record mode, both generated artifacts, their CI purpose, and key trust and storage constraints. Together with the fully documented schema, this provides enough context to invoke the tool and interpret its outputs correctly.

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 schema already documents the inputs comprehensively. The description helpfully relates records and replies to policy_check and checker-derived expectations, but most parameter-specific meaning and constraints still come entirely from the structured schema.

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 states that the tool runs policy_check and exports the result as curbi.regression JSON plus a dependency-free node:test file. This specific CI-export purpose clearly distinguishes it from directly checking a policy with policy_check or using the other siblings.

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 CI-regression framing establishes the intended workflow, while "caller-supplied records" and "no receipts or required-signature mode" scope the supported scenario. It does not explicitly say when to use policy_check instead or provide other when-not routing guidance.

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