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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return field list and the POST endpoint, but says nothing about the no-paging/500-cap limit, result ordering, or empty-result behavior beyond what the schema params state.

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 tight sentences: what it searches, what it returns, and one practical usage tip. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero 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 usefully enumerates return fields, which is the right compensation. The main omission is the no-paging cap and default limit behavior, which matters for an agent deciding whether one call suffices.

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 82%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including the date semantics. The description only echoes the field names and singles out submitted_after/updated_since, adding little semantic detail the schema does not already 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (policies) and enumerates the searchable dimensions plus the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It implicitly separates itself from agencybloc_get_policy by being a filtered list, but never names that sibling for contrast.

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?

'Use submitted_after/updated_since for recent business' gives one concrete usage cue, and 'Search policies by ...' implies filter-driven use. There is no when-not guidance and no explicit pointer to alternatives like get_policy or search_individuals for related lookups.

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