disclosure_aup_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: this is a read-only surfacing of declared posture, not a verification, plus the exact set of possible status outcomes. It does not describe the input format or error behavior, but the non-verification limitation is the critical disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it returns, the enumerated outcomes, then the limitation and alternative. Front-loaded and every sentence 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?

With no output schema, enumerating the four status strings is exactly the return-value context an agent needs, and the non-verification boundary is stated. The gap is the undocumented required input parameter, which leaves the call contract 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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter document_json has no type detail, format, or example in either the schema or the description. The description describes outputs (status values) but contributes nothing about what document_json must contain, so the agent must guess the expected input shape.

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 ('Surface') and resource (the disclosure's declared policy posture and aup_uri reference), and enumerates the resulting status values, so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It also names the sibling it is not (aup_check_compliance), making it distinguishable without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly says what it does not do ('does not verify compliance') and points to the alternative that does, aup_check_compliance. It lacks a positive when-to-use statement (e.g. 'use before compliance evaluation to read declared posture'), but the exclusion effectively routes the agent.

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