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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the specific content of the return (Phase-1 external-participation policy) and notes it is machine-readable, which provides useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not detail the structure or format of the policy.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It states the action, the subject, and a key qualifier ('machine-readable') efficiently.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what is returned. It is a straightforward getter, and the description provides sufficient context for an agent to know what it will receive, though it does not enumerate policy fields.

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 the description does not need to explain any. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this score is appropriate; the schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is nothing to add.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource as the 'Phase-1 external-participation policy,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gaip_get_capabilities or gaip_get_shadow_status. The phrase 'machine-readable' also clarifies the return format.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, with no mention of context, exclusions, or when another sibling might be more appropriate.

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