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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never says what the tool returns, whether it mutates or only drafts, what inputs it expects, or how it handles incomplete policy text. "Includes the complete prompt, usage guide, and edge-case handling" hints at a prompt-pack deliverable but is too ambiguous to inform behavior.

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 sentences, but the lead-in ("Turn expertise into output") and the closing ("Includes the complete prompt, usage guide, and edge-case handling") are promotional filler rather than front-loaded operational information. Almost none of the text 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context for this tool, and it supplies none of the essentials: what gets polished, what the response contains, or how it differs from the neighboring policy-* tools. The complexity is low (one optional param), but the definition still leaves the agent unable to invoke it confidently.

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 100%, so the single optional "query" parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no scoping or format guidance for it, which is acceptable under the high-coverage baseline but nothing more.

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?

"Turn expertise into output" and "helps restaurant and brand teams produce professional results" restate the name (policy polish) without stating a clear verb+resource operation, and there is no distinction from the many adjacent siblings such as policy-rewrite-tool, policy-write-tool, policy-gen-tool or policy-audit-tool. The only concrete noun is "prompt pack," which obscures rather than clarifies what the tool actually does.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to any of the nine sibling policy-* tools. The phrase "in minutes" is marketing, not selection criteria, so an agent has no basis for choosing this over policy-rewrite-tool or policy-write-tool.

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