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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable non-annotation behavior: `policyFileName` is coerced to `*.policy.md`, and list mode marks `isDefault` when the filename matches `<workflow-id>.policy.md`.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by mode-selection and default-marking details. Every sentence contributes operational meaning with no 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?

For a moderate two-mode tool with no output schema, the description covers the key call patterns and special filename behavior. It leaves return content somewhat implicit, but annotations and schema descriptions carry the safety and auth details.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description supplies meaning for the undocumented parameters: `policyFileName` examples and coercion, plus `workflowId` as an optional list filter. It does not explain `botId` or `projectApiKey`, but those are documented in the schema itself.

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/resource pair: fetching or listing workflow policy files from the POLICY_FILE store. It clearly distinguishes its two internal modes (single-file fetch vs. list), but does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling `upsert-policy` tool.

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 clearly explains when to pass `policyFileName` to fetch one file and when to omit it to list policies, including the optional `workflowId` for listing. It does not name or exclude any alternative sibling tool, so the guidance stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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