check_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It uses the verb 'Check,' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects, authorization requirements, or return behavior. For a simple status check, this is adequate but not detailed.

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 a single, concise sentence of seven words. There is no unnecessary information, and the key purpose 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose and scope. It does not detail return values, but for a basic status check with no complex inputs or outputs, this is sufficient.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter detail to add. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed.

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 function with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('current spending limits and policy status'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_balance and send_transaction because it focuses on policy/limits rather than balance or transaction execution.

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 implies usage by stating what the tool checks, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it vs alternatives like get_balance or send_transaction. There is no direct exclusion or alternative guidance, though the context is understandable.

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