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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only validation ('guard', 'least-privilege') but never states what a failure returns, whether it blocks or merely reports, what auth it needs, or how the fee is charged. For a zero-annotation tool that is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with no filler, though the trailing price fragment is appended loosely rather than integrated. Nothing extraneous, but it reads as a tagline rather than a structured definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but the nested policy/delegation object shape at 0% coverage leaves the caller with little guidance beyond the example block. Given the complexity of the input, the description could be more complete.

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 0% and both parameters are nested objects (policy, delegation) with no field documentation. The description's mention of scope, destinations, budget, and expiry loosely maps to delegation fields, but it never explains the policy objects or the distinction between the two top-level parameters.

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 fragment names a specific function (least-privilege guard) and a specific resource domain (agent-to-agent delegation), then enumerates the dimensions checked: scope, destinations, budget, expiry. This distinguishes it from most siblings, though its closeness to delegated_credential_guard is not addressed.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as delegated_credential_guard or inter_agent_policy_evaluator despite many overlapping siblings. The only contextual signal is a price (0.003 USDC), which informs cost but not selection.

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