Fast Pre-Action Audit

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

The description adds useful context beyond annotations by disclosing the cost ($0.01) and that it uses the default policy. Annotations already convey non-read-only and non-destructive status, but the description does not explain side effects such as payment handling. With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence of about 15 words, front-loaded with the tool name and cost, with no filler. Every word adds value, making it an exemplary concise description.

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 simple operation (two required parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for a quick audit tool. It covers purpose and cost, though it could add explicit guidance on when to choose this over other evaluation variants.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive text for each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 it is a 'FAST Pre-Action Audit' that performs a 'quick policy check of an agent's response using the default policy.' The 'FAST' and 'default policy' wording distinguishes it from siblings like dcl_evaluate_strict or dcl_evaluate_safety, which imply more thorough or specialized checks.

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 use for quick checks with the default policy but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like dcl_evaluate_strict or dcl_evaluate_safety. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, though the 'FAST' and 'default policy' wording gives some implied context.

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