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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description supports by using 'Read'. The description adds the 'live' qualifier, indicating real-time data, but does not disclose other behaviors such as response format or error handling. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. There is zero filler, and every word contributes to clarifying the tool's purpose.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with no required parameters and a clear purpose. The description adequately conveys what is being read, and the lack of an output schema or complex behavior means minimal additional context is needed. It is slightly above average but not exhaustive.

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 100%, and the single optional 'params' field is documented generically for raw JSON. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it relies on the schema, which is sufficient.

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 specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('live IntentGuardian fee and extension policy'). It clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling guardian tools like peer_guardian_available or peer_guardian_quote_extension.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action without context about when this policy read is appropriate or when to prefer another guardian-related tool.

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