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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load for behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool returns a policy and does not dispatch externally, which implies a read-only, non-mutating operation. However, it does not describe the returned policy's format, contents, or any potential access conditions.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat about not dispatching externally is relevant and concise.

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 very low complexity (zero parameters, no nested objects), the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral constraint. There is no output schema, so the description could have said slightly more about the expected return content, but for this simple read-only policy tool it is largely sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so no parameter-level explanation is needed. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline of 4 is appropriate given there are no parameters to document.

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 identifies the tool as returning the Bursia Beacon outbound discovery policy, using a specific verb and resource. The second sentence clarifies that it is not an external dispatch mechanism. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling policy tools like human_oversight_policy.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description: call this when you need the outbound discovery policy. The statement 'Canary does not dispatch externally' hints that it should not be used for actual external dispatch, but no explicit alternatives or when-not conditions are provided.

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