policy_policies__list_policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that results are filtered by token permissions, which is not in the annotations. It says nothing about pagination defaults or response ordering, but the schema's pageSize description covers pagination mechanics.

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 the scope constraint stated up front. The '(GET /v2/policies)' segment duplicates the annotation title and the resource name, which is mild waste but not harmful.

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 simple, parameter-free-required list endpoint with full schema coverage and complete safety annotations, the description supplies what is missing: the token-based access scoping. Only the absence of any sibling routing or empty-result guidance keeps it from a 5.

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% and all three parameters (fields, pageSize, pageToken) are documented in detail, including the local-projection behavior of 'fields' and the 50/1000 pagination bounds. The description adds no parameter meaning on top of that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List policies') and adds a scope qualifier: only policies accessible to the caller's token. That distinguishes it from a fetch-by-id sibling like policy_policies__get_policy, though the description never names that sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance beyond the implied 'list everything' semantics. It doesn't say when to use the get-by-id variant, when policy_assignments is more appropriate, or what to do if the caller's token yields an empty set. The agent has to infer all routing decisions.

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