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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond these by noting 'not separately rate-limited' and explicitly listing the returned fields (min_confidence, risk_floor, require_calibration, allow_reexecution, and snapshot metadata). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope, the second adds safety, usage ordering, and return field details. Information is front-loaded and each 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the exact return fields, which is crucial. It also gives a usage hint. While it doesn't mention error conditions or permissions, for a parameterless read tool this is sufficient. The mention of 'current' policy implies historical snapshots are handled by another 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. Per calibration, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't, which is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('current autonomous execution policy'), and scope ('for the active organization'). It distinguishes from the sibling update_execution_policy by explicitly noting 'Read this before update_execution_policy,' and the resource name itself differentiates from list_execution_policy_snapshots.

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 a clear usage context: 'Read this before update_execution_policy' tells the agent exactly when to call this tool. It also notes it is read-only and non-destructive, implying safe to use in read scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_execution_policy_snapshots for historical policy retrieval, though that is a different tool.

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