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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it performs a pre-execution security evaluation, returns one of three policy decisions, and has a critical safety implication (preventing execution on DENY). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but covers the core operational behavior well.

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 perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence establishes the core purpose and output. The second sentence provides critical usage guidelines. The third sentence delivers an essential safety instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the most important information (what it does and when to use it) is front-loaded.

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 security evaluation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about its purpose, usage, and behavioral implications. It doesn't describe the return format details (what ALLOW/DENY/WOULD_DENY responses contain) or potential error cases, but covers the essential operational context sufficiently given the tool's critical safety role.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already documented in the schema (action_type, resource, agent_name, context). It mentions these parameters implicitly through examples ('read, write, delete, transfer, execute') but provides no additional semantic context.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('evaluate an AI agent action against Hejdar security policies') and resources ('security policies'), and explicitly distinguishes its role as a pre-execution check. It identifies the exact function (policy evaluation) and output (ALLOW, DENY, WOULD_DENY), leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('before any sensitive action') and what to do based on the outcome ('if the decision is DENY, do NOT execute the action'). It lists specific action types (read, write, delete, transfer, execute) that should trigger its use, offering clear operational instructions despite no sibling tools for comparison.

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