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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose the output nature (rules with governance context) and the 'living standards' aspect, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it mention any auth requirements or rate limits. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but an explicit statement would be clearer.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs in relevant details (enriched directives, governance context, inference enforcement) without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and in what context it is used. It mentions the inclusion of governance references (CWE, MITRE, regulatory) which helps an agent understand the output. The only minor gap is lack of explicit note about the default packId behavior, but that is already in the schema.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of the parameter meaning, including the oneOf string/array type and the default value 'web'. The description merely confirms 'one or more policy packs', adding no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'enriched policy directives and living standards', specifying the scope 'for one or more policy packs' and the return value 'rules with governance context'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_packs, which likely lists available packs, and check_code, which analyzes code.

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 description implies when to use this tool: to retrieve policy directives for packs at inference time enforcement. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the context 'for inference time enforcement' provides clear usage context. Since list_packs presumably handles pack discovery, get_directives is appropriately positioned for fetching directives.

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