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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses auth requirements (Authorization: Bearer), cost (5 credits per call, with per-credit price range and a pricing URL), the endpoint and proxy behavior, and the crucial result semantics that 'undetermined is not a pass.' It does not cover pagination behavior or error handling, which is why it stops short of 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the framing question and then layered with the information an agent needs (semantics, cost, alternative, transport). Sentences are dense but each carries a distinct fact; the pricing parenthetical is the only slightly expendable detail.

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 correctly takes on the burden of describing results (pass/fail/undetermined per row) and adds the non-obvious rule that undetermined is not a pass. It remains silent on pagination for limit/offset and on the required fields of the policy object, leaving modest gaps for a 7-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It partly does: it explains the shape of `policy` (licence, origin, data handling) and ties the pass/fail/undetermined vocabulary to the `verdicts` parameter, but `limit`, `offset`, `models`/`platforms` usage, and `require_no_undetermined` receive no explanation.

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?

Opens with a precise framing question ('Which models, on which platforms, does my policy allow?') and then states the verb+resource+scope: it checks a policy document per model and per platform. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `decide` ('It doesn't choose a model: use decide'), so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Names the alternative tool (`decide`) and the condition that selects it (choose among passing models), which is strong routing guidance. It does not state an explicit when-not use case beyond model selection or any prerequisites for invoking it, so it falls just short of the full when/when-not/alternative triad.

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