enforce_grounded_output

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions applying a 'strict' policy and returning evidence, but omits details about idempotency, side effects, required permissions, default behavior for missing policy, or audit logging (though actor_id hints at audit).

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every part is necessary to convey purpose, action, and outcome. It is maximally concise.

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 no output schema, the description should detail the return value beyond 'allow/block decision evidence'. It does not explain what 'source-grounding' means, how policy is applied, or error/edge cases. The presence of a nested object (policy) is not elaborated. The tool's complexity is under-communicated.

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 67% (policy and actor_id have descriptions). The description adds context for the main parameter 'terms' by stating they are generated output terms, but does not elaborate on policy structure beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description partially compensates for missing term description.

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 action ('Apply strict source-grounding policy') and the resource ('generated output terms'), and specifies the outcome ('return allow/block decision evidence'). It differentiates from siblings like 'enforce_intent' and 'validate_output_terms' by focusing on source-grounding, but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned. The agent cannot determine when to prefer this over sibling tools like 'validate_output_terms'.

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