Explain Spend Policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'read-only' is consistent but not additive. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the type of explanation (allow/approve/deny), which is useful but not required given annotations.

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: first states purpose, second provides usage warning and alternative. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters) and existing annotations, the description is adequate for purpose and usage but incomplete on parameter semantics. With output schema present, return values are covered, but the lack of parameter guidance creates a gap.

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 0%, so the description should compensate but does not. It mentions 'proposed spend' but never maps to any of the 11 parameters (e.g., requested_spend_cents, currency, vendor_id). The agent receives no guidance on how to fill parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('explain') and resource ('spend policy'), and clearly states the outcomes (allow, require approval, deny). It distinguishes from sibling tool paybond_authorize_agent_spend, which is for persisting decisions.

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 explicitly states when not to use this tool ('do not use to authorize spend or create approval requests') and provides a clear alternative ('call paybond_authorize_agent_spend').

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