Explain Spend Policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the nature of evaluation (proposed spend) and the possible outcomes (allow, require approval, deny), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like rate limits or error states, but given the annotations cover the key trait, the additional context earns a 4.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and uses no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, including the exclusion of alternative use.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core functionality completely for a simple query tool, including the decision outcomes and the advisory against authorization.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond the overall purpose, which is acceptable since the schema already fully describes each parameter.

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 clearly states the verb 'explain' and the resource 'spend policy', specifying three outcomes: allow, require approval, or deny. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'paybond_authorize_agent_spend' by explicitly saying not to use it 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?

The description explicitly provides when to use ('when you need a read-only explanation') and when not to use ('do not use this to authorize spend or create approval requests'), and names the alternative tool '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.