policy_list

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral load; 'List' signals a read-only operation and the sentence discloses the included data domains. It does not address ordering, whether archived policies are included, result size limits, or permission requirements for reading the household graph.

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 sentence with the verb and scope first and the payload detail trailing. No filler, though the trailing clause is dense enough that it reads as one run-on enumeration rather than structured 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of information about what comes back, and it sketches the contents but not the structure, ordering, or completeness guarantees. It is adequate to decide to call the tool but thin for interpreting results.

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 the baseline applies and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The mention of assets/persons and alert windows usefully hints at the shape of the response in the absence of 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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('every policy') plus scope ('household graph'), and it enumerates the payload (key dates, declared assets/persons, alert windows). An agent can tell this is the bulk-retrieval counterpart to policy_get without opening a schema, though no sibling is named.

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 word 'every' implies bulk listing versus the single-record policy_get, and the absence of parameters reinforces that no filtering is possible. However, the description never states when to prefer radar_report or gap_report over this, leaving the agent to infer routing from tool names alone.

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