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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/closed-world annotations, it discloses security behavior ('A secret setting shows as (set), never its value'), the semantics of blocking vs monitor enforcement, the 30-day evaluation window, and an authentication prerequisite ('Requires connecting a Valet account'). These are exactly the operational facts an agent cannot derive from the structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every sentence carries content — the return-shape detail matters because there is no output schema. Some sentences are densely packed (the checker fields and the policy fields in one clause each), which costs a little readability but no sentence is filler.

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 enumerating what each policy and checker returns, and it covers the auth requirement, the evaluation window, and enforcement semantics. Nothing needed to call a one-parameter read-only listing correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains the omit-to-use-default behavior, so the description adds nothing about org_name. Per the rubric this is the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List the release policies that evaluate every publish of an organization') and scopes it precisely to what the listing contains, including the two checker sources. An agent can distinguish this from set_policy, destroy_policy, and set_checker without opening any 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?

It gives a clear when-to-use trigger ('Call it before publishing to see what will be evaluated, and fix what you can first') and explains the blocking vs monitor distinction that governs what the agent should do with the results. It references set_checker as the tool that adds organization checkers, but never states an explicit alternative-selection rule such as when to prefer get_evaluation or a single-policy read.

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