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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: 'takes no mandate and no action', 'constant output', 'opens no files, contacts no host', and the key limitation that it cannot predict which rule fires.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior, then usage, then exclusions, then side-effect guarantees. Slightly padded by the rhetorical line 'A refusal you cannot explain is one nobody will trust', but overall tight and scannable.

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 fully specifies the return ('six enforcement rules in the exact order... each with a plain-language reason') and its constant nature. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms 'takes no mandate and no action', matching the empty schema, but there are no parameters whose meaning could be enriched.

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 and resource ('Return the six enforcement rules in the exact order they are applied') and notes the accompanying reason text. It distinguishes itself from 'drift_check' by clarifying that it performs no check and only reveals rule ordering.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('a refusal did not make sense', 'before explaining a denial') and an explicit when-not ('Do NOT use it to check an action'), plus the limitation that it cannot predict which rule fires. This routes the agent cleanly between itself and drift_check.

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