Authorize a Bounded Agent Action

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the default policy denies external and destructive risks, and that the server never executes the action itself. Since annotations are all false and provide no positive safety guarantees, these statements help agents understand the tool's limited, non-executing role.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a critical policy and execution boundary. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, default policy, and non-execution, which is strong given the output schema exists. However, it lacks usage guidance relative to sibling tools and does not clarify what the authorization result represents or how it should be consumed before proceeding with an action.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions risk policy and session budget, which loosely contextualize risk and estimated_cost_usd, but it does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Evaluate an intended action against server-owned risk policy and the session budget.' It also clarifies a crucial boundary: 'this server never executes the action itself,' which distinguishes it from execution-oriented sibling tools. The title reinforces the authorization purpose.

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 description implies this tool should be used before an action is taken, since it evaluates an 'intended action' against policy and budget. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like record_outcome or check_claim, and it provides no exclusionary guidance.

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