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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the guard blocks, warns, or logs, what happens when a policy is violated, what the output contains, or what the 2 required nested objects must include. Only the protected dimensions are listed.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the guard's purpose, though it omits any structural cue about the required objects.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, two required nested objects with 0% schema description coverage, and no behavioral details. The description is far too thin for a tool that appears to make security-critical decisions about delegation.

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 description coverage is 0% and both parameters are required nested objects with no shape or property descriptions. The description adds no meaning beyond naming the domains, so an agent cannot infer what 'delegation' and 'policy' must contain.

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 names a specific action: enforcing 'least-privilege guard' on 'agent-to-agent delegation scope, destinations, budget and expiry'. However, no verb directly states what the tool does (e.g., validate, check, enforce). It also lacks distinguishing context from siblings like payment_preflight or counterparty_risk_preflight, which also appear to be pre-execution guards.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description does not explain in which scenarios an agent should invoke this guard versus alternatives such as preflight or counterparty_risk_preflight.

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