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

With no annotations to lean on, the description discloses important behavioral traits: policies persist 'as long as the policy is in effect', they 'continue to modify GDI risk scores', and each policy returns specific fields (pillar, modifier, effective date, source event). This goes beyond the basic purpose and gives the agent useful expectations about statefulness and output contents.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. The second sentence adds a crucial distinction from news alerts, and the third sentence gives practical user context. Every sentence contributes a distinct payload, with no filler or redundancy.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, this description fully compensates. It specifies the types of policies, the persistence behavior, the effect on GDI scores, the fields included per policy, and the intended user base. The tool's simplicity (no parameters) means no further detail is necessary for effective invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax; instead, it enriches the context by explaining what the returned policy objects contain, which is more output-focused. This satisfies the baseline without adding parameter-specific details.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get active trade policy actions currently impacting supply chain risk', then enumerates concrete policy types (tariffs, sanctions, export controls, import restrictions, regulatory changes). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by contrasting with news alerts that expire after 72 hours, indicating this is the persistent policy-focused counterpart.

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 provides clear usage context by naming three user personas (procurement teams, compliance officers, supply chain strategists) and their scenarios. It also implies when to use this over alternative alert tools via the 'Unlike news alerts...' clause. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tool alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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