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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds the meaningful fail-closed enforcement rule plus the return payload (compliance_loop + buy URLs). 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?

The description is compact at two sentences, with the key policy behavior front-loaded. Some phrasing like 'Session/Cert OFF TABLE as primary' is terse and jargon-heavy, but the overall structure is efficient.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the core trigger, enforcement action, and return value. It leaves minor gaps around option variants and sibling relationships, but these are secondary given the structured metadata.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter documentation burden for the description to carry.

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 identifies a specific resource ('ABMP fail-closed policy') and a concrete behavior: block SQL write tools until payment PASS + verify. This goes well beyond the generic title 'Require policy,' though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like sqlguard_gate or sqlguard_verify.

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 intended context is implied: agent runtimes should invoke or apply this policy before SQL write tools. Unlock conditions are stated, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many sqlguard siblings.

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