decision_card_to_policy_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It clearly states 'Read-only preview', indicating no side effects, and explains the transformation logic. This is adequate for safe invocation, though it could clarify the return format.

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 a single paragraph that gets straight to the point. It is concise and informative, though slightly dense due to listing mappings. No wasted sentences, but could benefit from bullet points for readability.

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 no output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns, but it does not. Parameters are not explained despite 0% schema coverage. The tool is simpler (2 params, no nested objects), but the missing return info and parameter details make it incomplete.

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 descriptions coverage is 0%, but the description adds no meaning to the two parameters (url, document_json). It does not explain what each parameter represents or how to provide them, severely impairing correct use.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Translate' and the resources 'Decision Card' to 'PolicyBundle'. It specifies the mapping for each status, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like decision_card_fetch or decision_card_infer_status.

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 a use case (read-only preview) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The mapping is explained, but guidance on prerequisite conditions (e.g., having a decision card) is missing.

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