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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a behavioral detail by specifying 'optional status filter,' which informs the agent that filtering is available. However, it does not disclose what happens without the filter (e.g., returns all policies), the format of the output, or any edge cases like invalid status values. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the core operation ('List policies') and immediately follows with the optional modifier. There is no redundant information or filler. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it tells the agent what the tool does and the available filtering option. It does not explicitly state the return type, but 'list' implies a collection, and the simplicity of the tool reduces the need for additional context. The lack of sibling differentiation is a minor gap, but overall the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and only defines 'status' as a string without any meaning. The description compensates by labeling it an 'optional status filter,' which clarifies that the parameter is not required and that its purpose is to filter results. However, it does not enumerate valid status values or explain the matching behavior, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states the operation (list) and the resource (policies), with an optional scope (status filter). The verb 'list' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'register_policy' (which implies creation) and 'compliance_score' (which implies calculation). This is a specific and unambiguous purpose statement.

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 description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any contexts where another tool would be more appropriate, nor does it compare with sibling tools such as 'policy_gap_check' or 'approval_tracker'. The usage context is only implied by the word 'list'.

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