aureon_check_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral traits: it is non-mutating ('does not send the hire') and non-signing, and it enumerates the return values (allow, refuse, authorization_required). It omits auth requirements and any idempotency/rate-limit context, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the purpose, the return values, and the side-effect boundary. The core purpose is front-loaded with 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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the three return values, and the side-effect boundary substitutes for missing annotations. The main gap is that it does not explain what an 'authorization_required' result implies or what the caller should do next.

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%, including the nested action object (type must be 'hire', asset, amount, agent), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (check) and resource (one proposed agent hire) against the wallet's financial objective, and names the three possible outcomes. This is enough to tell it apart from generic read siblings, but it never addresses the adjacent aureon_get_policy_check sibling, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 only implied: 'Does not send the hire and does not sign' signals a dry-run pre-check, so an agent can infer this precedes an actual hire. However, it never states when to prefer this over aureon_get_policy_check or how it relates to aureon_run_execution, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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