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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint true; openWorldHint false), and the description adds real context beyond them: the recommendation is deterministic (no LLM call), it is advisory only and must be applied in the dashboard, it requires an account key, and the recommendation is drawn from previously recorded calls. It stops short of describing recomputation cadence or how much recorded data is needed.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: the payload is front-loaded, the advisory-only caveat follows, and the auth prerequisite is last. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned artifacts (allowlist, argument keys, unused upstream tools). Combined with the single fully documented parameter and complete annotations, nothing required to invoke or interpret this call 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with proxyId already documented as the id returned by agentguard_create_proxy. The description's phrase 'from the proxy's recorded calls' loosely reinforces that proxyId selects the recorded dataset, but adds no new syntactic or formatting meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource — a least-privilege allowlist recommendation derived from recorded proxy calls — and enumerates exactly what it returns (minimal allowlist, per-tool argument keys, unused upstream tools). It is clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with siblings like agentguard_set_policy or agentguard_export_audit, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 LLM call here; apply it in the dashboard' establishes that this tool only computes a recommendation and that the change is applied elsewhere, which is useful implied context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. set_policy) for actually applying the allowlist.

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