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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds significant context by disclosing the $2 per call cost, which is a behavioral trait not captured by the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could further clarify what happens to the generated policy (e.g., returned inline vs. stored).

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and cost. Every sentence carries essential information with no fluff 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?

With 7 parameters, 5 required, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return format (beyond 'written security policy'), how customizations influence the output, or how the named parameters are used. The cost and usage triggers are useful, but the overall context is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 only 14% (only previous_scan_id has a description). The description mentions some policy types (mapping to the enum) but does not explain the meaning or role of other required parameters like organization_name, industry, employee_count, frameworks, or customizations. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 tool 'generates a tailored written security policy' with specific examples of policy types, and explicitly ties usage to 'control gap' scenarios, distinguishing it from siblings like audit_report_generate. The verb 'generate' and resource 'written security policy' are specific.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use when a control gap specifically calls for documented policy.' This gives a clear trigger condition. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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