get_password_policy_violations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the categories of violations found, which is useful, but does not clarify that this is a read-only operation, whether any permissions are required, or what the result shape looks like.

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 front-loaded and short. The example line and 'Essential for password security compliance' are somewhat redundant but not harmful; the core purpose appears in the first sentence.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is only partially complete. It explains what the tool identifies but does not describe the returned user fields or confirm read-only behavior, leaving some gaps for an agent invoking it.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description correctly presents the call with an empty argument list.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get users with password policy violations.' It further clarifies the scope by naming expired passwords, never-expiring passwords, and policy violations, which distinguishes it from generic user-listing siblings like list_users or get_inactive_users.

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 through 'Essential for password security compliance,' but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over adjacent tools such as get_inactive_users or audit_admin_accounts, nor does it state exclusions.

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