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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, prerequisites, or output behavior on its own. It only says it 'generates' policies, which implies creation but doesn't mention any constraints (e.g., input format, required data, reversibility, or whether it actually triggers a transaction). The added pricing tag is meta-information, not behavioral. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely has side effects.

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 sentence but includes extraneous meta-information like 'Auto-created from research' and a pricing/pay-per-use tag, which are not relevant to tool selection. It front-loads the action and key attributes, but the clutter reduces clarity. It's not overly long, but it could be more focused.

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 the tool generates policies, an agent needs to know the expected input format, output structure, and any constraints (e.g., must provide all attributes). None of that is provided. There's no output schema and no explanation of what the generated policy looks like. The description is insufficient for correct 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 single parameter 'input' has only the vague description 'entrada' (input). Schema coverage is technically 100% because the parameter exists, but the description adds nothing about what the input should contain. The tool description mentions the policy attributes but doesn't clarify what format or content the input string should have. Since the schema is uninformative, the description needed to compensate and didn't.

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 states a specific verb ('Genera') and a clear resource: machine-readable economic delegation policies with defined attributes (spending limits, scope, expiration, counterparties). It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like agent-security-audit or agent-trust-oracle by focusing on policy generation for payment-executing agents. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative or contrast with them, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many siblings. The description explains what the tool does but never states conditions for selection, exclusions, or alternative tools. An agent has no contextual cues to decide between this and other policy-related tools like zero-trust-policy-check.

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