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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond 'tenant-scoped' and a resource list; 'Operate on' is ambiguous and does not clarify whether this performs a read-only policy validation or some other action.

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 short and front-loaded, but brevity is not useful when it omits the core action. This is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness, so the sentence does not earn 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?

Given 13 loosely-typed parameters, zero required parameters, additionalProperties=true, and many sibling estimator tools, the description is far too incomplete. Even with an output schema present, an agent cannot determine what inputs to provide or what operation is being performed.

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?

With 13 parameters and only 15% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain key parameters, but it explains none. It only hints at tenant scoping, which maps to tenant_id. The many objects and strings (line, lines, query, bridge, format, approval, source_id, document_id, estimate_id, progress_pct, idempotency_key) are left entirely undefined.

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 uses the generic verb 'Operate on' and lists resource types (drafts, lines, versions, documents, exports, policy receipts) without stating what the tool actually does. The title says 'policy check', but the description never says it checks or validates policy. It is too vague to distinguish from sibling estimator_* tools.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The description does not explain when an agent should choose this tool over estimator_estimate_export, estimator_receipt_get, or other estimator_* siblings. The only clue is the title, which is insufficient.

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