aureon_get_policy_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two most important traits: no hire is sent and nothing is signed, i.e. a side-effect-free read. It says nothing about whether this actionId requires prior authorization, whether the stored decision can expire or be superseded, or any rate/access limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed immediately by the safety constraint. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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?

For a single-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the no-side-effect guarantee, but says nothing about the shape of the returned decision, and the name/description mismatch ('policy_check' vs 'hire decision') leaves the object under-specified. Adequate but with clear gaps given the absence of any output schema.

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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('Stored policy action id'), so the schema already fully documents it. The description only echoes the parameter name, adding no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Read') and a scoped resource ('one stored hire decision by actionId'), and the qualifier 'stored' distinguishes it from a live check such as the sibling aureon_check_policy. The only friction is that the resource is called a 'hire decision' while the tool name says 'policy_check', which creates mild ambiguity about what object is actually returned.

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 clause 'Does not send the hire and does not sign' implies this is the non-mutating read path versus a sibling that does send/sign, giving implied usage context. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use statement, so the routing guidance must be inferred.

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