Check whether organization policy is connected

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It conveys that this is a reporting/status operation and specifies the reported content, which implies non-mutating behavior, but it does not explicitly state edge cases, limitations, or what 'connected' means operationally. It is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences with no filler. The core behavior is stated first, followed by concrete usage triggers. Everything 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?

Given the zero-parameter input, an output schema exists, and the description covers both the tool's behavior and when to invoke it, nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters and full schema coverage, so parameter-semantic burden is minimal. The description adds context about what the status output will contain, which is appropriate for a no-argument tool.

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 function: report whether the install applies an organization's custom policy or built-in rules, and identifies the included details (org name, rule count). It is clearly about policy status rather than scanning or fixing, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool to differentiate itself from.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: use it when the user asks which rules are in force or why a company rule is not appearing. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it misses the full when/when-not contrast.

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