Check an action against the consent policy

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it is non-blocking ('This call does not block.'), fail-closed ('FAIL CLOSED: if the result is anything other than "allow", do not perform the action.'), and clarifies that 'ask' is not approval. These add meaningful context that the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations do not provide.

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 four sentences long, with each sentence earning its place: purpose, usage examples, return values, and the critical fail-closed instruction. It is front-loaded with the main action and is dense with useful guidance, with no fluff.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully explains the return values and their meanings, the non-blocking nature, and the fail-closed behavior. It also handles the 'ask' edge case by directing to request_approval. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including examples and built-in categories. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning, such as that metadata is 'used by the owner's rules,' but does not significantly expand on what the schema already says. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the tool checks whether an action is permitted by the consent policy before performing it. It specifies the verb 'check' and the resource 'consent policy', and differentiates from the sibling tool request_approval by noting that 'ask' is not approval and should use request_approval.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'for any potentially sensitive, irreversible, or high-impact action' with concrete examples. It also provides an explicit alternative for the 'ask' result: 'use request_approval to get a human decision, or ask the user.' This is strong guidance.

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