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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds a significant entitlement requirement ('Corporate tier required') and describes the domain content of policies, which is useful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations. No behavioral traits are contradicted.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The parenthetical list of example thresholds adds helpful context without excessive length. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and a key prerequisite. Nothing essential for calling the tool is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter detail and appropriately focuses on the resource.

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 ('List') and resource ('custom voting policies for the current user'), and adds scope by describing what a policy contains (threshold overrides for board independence, remuneration caps, tenure limits, gender diversity, etc.). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like check_governance_policy, but the resource is distinct enough to be identifiable.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when asked about voting policies, proxy policy settings, or governance thresholds.' It also provides a prerequisite ('Corporate tier required'). No alternatives are named, but for a unique list tool the guidance is clear and sufficient.

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