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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context: no model call and no cost, plus the response contract. It doesn't discuss failure modes or what an invalid policy returns, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is solid.

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?

Well front-loaded: capability and cost first, then the usage trigger. The enumeration of return keys is mildly redundant since an output schema exists, but the text is short and every other sentence earns 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?

For a one-parameter validation tool with an existing output schema and clear annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, cost/latency profile, when to call it, and its place in the compile→check→draft workflow.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that "policy" is "a policy object from compile_offer_policy, edited or not." The description's "edited" phrasing reinforces this but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Check an edited negotiation policy") and immediately names the return shape {ok, policy, issues, summary}. It also differentiates itself behaviorally from heavier siblings with "No model call, free," so an agent can place it without opening the schema.

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 USE THIS WHEN block gives an explicit trigger ("you changed a policy from compile_offer_policy") and an explicit downstream condition ("before using it in draft_negotiation_reply"). Both the predecessor and successor tools are named, so routing is unambiguous.

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