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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the result (a link to each policy page) rather than raw policy text alone, though it does not clarify whether full policy text, excerpts, or only links are returned.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second handles routing to siblings. No filler, no repetition of the title, and each sentence carries decision-relevant 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and sibling boundaries adequately. The only residual gap is the exact return shape (links vs. full policy text), which matters slightly more because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by framing it as a plain read of store-wide policies; there is nothing further a parameter discussion could add.

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 ("Read") and a specific resource (Curo's shipping, returns, contact and research-use-only policies), enumerating the exact policy domains covered plus the form of the response (a link per policy page). This is clearly distinguishable from any sibling, none of which deal with store policies.

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?

"Use it for questions about delivery, refunds or how to reach Curo" gives concrete triggering conditions, and the next sentence explicitly excludes product facts, routing them to search_products and get_product. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use plus named alternatives are present.

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