Foran policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and locality profile is settled structurally. The description adds only that this is a read of a fixed set of policy documents – nothing about whether content is store-specific, localized, or free-form text. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead and the value list follows. It is slightly more of a fragment than a structured statement, but nothing is wasted.

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?

This is a low-complexity, single-required-enum tool with no output schema, so the definition needn't explain return formatting. What is missing is minor: whether the response is a text blob or structured fields, and how store scoping works, but nothing prevents a correct call.

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 0%, but the single parameter is an enum whose six allowed values the description reproduces. That repetition confirms the accepted inputs without adding new semantics such as what each policy actually contains; baseline 3 for a one-param tool whose schema enumerates the domain.

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?

"Read a Foran policy" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the enumerated list (terms, privacy, refund, cancellation, delivery, about) makes the tool's scope immediately graspable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling foran_about or foran_buying_guide, which plausibly cover overlapping content.

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 by the list of retrievable policy types; there is no statement of when to pick this over foran_about (which shares the "about" value) or foran_buying_guide. An agent can infer intent, but the ambiguity with the sibling about tool is left unresolved.

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