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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully states that the tool returns eligibility only and not an Atinamos buy/no-buy instruction, and it enumerates supported policy keys. It does not explicitly disclose side-effect status, network dependencies, or failure behavior, leaving some ambiguity for an evaluation tool.

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 compact and front-loads the main purpose before stating the important limitation and supported keys. The first two sentences are slightly redundant in expressing the eligibility result, but overall every sentence carries useful information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a nested policy object, the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool evaluates and which policy keys are supported, but it does not define the return shape, explain the endpoint parameter, or describe error conditions, leaving an agent uncertain about full invocation and result handling.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the policy object through the supported policy keys, but the required endpoint parameter is never described, and the nested structure of policy is left vague. This is a substantial gap for one of only two 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 description uses a specific verb-resource pair, 'Evaluate evidence against procurement rules,' and clarifies the output is eligibility rather than a buy/no-buy instruction. This distinguishes the tool from the sibling evidence/search/history tools, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

The intended use is implied: call this when evidence needs to be checked against procurement rules supplied by the calling agent. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to lookup_evidence, search_services, or service_history.

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