Check generation

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so this is a safe read. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the three possible outcomes (finished policy, error, still running) and the duplicate-creation hazard of re-invoking the generator. No output schema exists, so this return-outcome disclosure carries extra weight.

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 it does, then the routing/duplicate warning. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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, the description compensates by enumerating what the call can return (policy, error, still-running) and how it fits the async generation workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single job_id parameter is already documented as 'The job ID returned by the generation tool.' The description echoes that provenance without adding format or handling detail, 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?

States a specific verb (Get the result) and resource (an async generation job), and explicitly names the three sibling tools whose calls it resolves: generate_policy, generate_baa, regenerate_policy. An agent can distinguish it from the generators without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('a call that was still running when it returned a job ID') and a when-not-to-use with the consequence spelled out ('Use this instead of starting the generation again, which would create a duplicate'). Both the trigger condition and the alternative are named.

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