Explain Spend Policy

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. Description adds context that the tool returns an 'explanation' of three possible outcomes, which is beyond what annotations alone convey. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence serves a distinct function: purpose and usage guidance. No extraneous 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?

While the purpose and usage are clear, the description omits any guidance on the 11 parameters (e.g., what 'intent_id' means). With many siblings and a complex schema, an agent needs more completeness to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

Input schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter's purpose, role, or how to use them. For a tool with low schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails entirely.

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 verb ('explain') and resource ('spend control policy') with clear outcome ('allow, require approval, or deny'). It distinguishes from sibling tool paybond_authorize_agent_spend by explicitly noting it is read-only and not for authorization.

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?

Includes explicit when-to-use ('read-only explanation of whether a proposed spend...'), when-not-to-use ('Do not use to authorize spend'), and alternative tool name ('call paybond_authorize_agent_spend'). This is exemplary guidance.

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