list_acc_policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the ACC-plugin dependency, which is real added value, but says nothing about pagination defaults, result size, or what happens when the plugin is absent.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite second. Nothing extraneous, nothing buried.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition covers what and the key prerequisite. Missing only minor operational detail: whether results are paginated, default ordering, and what an empty response implies.

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 100% with both parameters (limit, active) documented inline, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no extra meaning, such as how `active` interacts with the default 25-record cap or whether filtering applies before or after limiting. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List ACC monitoring/check policies.' An agent can distinguish it from the similarly named siblings list_acc_agents and list_acc_checks by the 'policies' noun, though the description never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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?

'Requires the ACC plugin' is a genuine precondition that tells the agent when the tool is callable at all. However there is no guidance on when to pick this over list_acc_checks or list_ui_policies, and no note on whether an empty result means no policies or a missing plugin.

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