check_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool evaluates and returns a decision, but it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, whether it requires special permissions, or what form the decision takes. Some behavioral context is present, but important transparency cues are missing.

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-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and a minimal return concept ('decision'). It does not explain possible decision values or side-effect behavior, but the tool is simple and the input schema is complete, so the context is mostly sufficient.

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%, with both `policy` and `artifact` documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Evaluate'), the resource ('artifact against an organization policy'), and the output ('return the decision'). It also distinguishes itself from general safety checks with 'rather than whether it is generally safe', separating it from sibling verify tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the user asks whether something is allowed by their rules'. It also provides a when-not via 'rather than whether it is generally safe', clearly differentiating this policy check from general safety verification.

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