Read the Signing Policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes further by enumerating the three return states (active, absent, unreadable) and disclosing the fail-closed consequence that an unparseable file "refuses everything". That failure-mode disclosure is behavior an agent could not get from the annotations or the empty schema, and it materially affects how the agent should interpret an unreadable result.

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, front-loaded with what is read and then what comes back. Every clause earns its place, including the parenthetical consequence, and there is no restatement of the title or annotations.

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, read-only local lookup with no output schema, the description supplies exactly what is missing elsewhere: the resource being read, the possible return states, and the safety implication of the worst one. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it or interpret the result is absent.

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 is 4; there is no parameter meaning to add. The description correctly stays silent on inputs rather than inventing any.

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 and resource ("Read the local signing policy") and scopes it as bounding every transaction fibx signs. The sibling tools set_policy_rule and clear_policy_rule make the read/write split unambiguous, and the description does nothing to blur it.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase "bounds every transaction fibx signs", which suggests checking it before signing, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. It never names set_policy_rule or clear_policy_rule as alternatives, relying on the reader to infer the relationship from names alone.

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