vizier_check_policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the substantive point that this is a policy/screening operation with distinct check families. However, it never says what a violation produces — a block, a flag, an error — or whether the check is advisory or enforcing, which is the behavior an agent most needs here.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the category detail folded into a compact parenthetical. Zero filler and nothing to trim.

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 only two fully-described parameters and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient, but for a gate-keeping tool the return semantics (pass/fail shape, what a hit looks like, whether the caller should abort) are the critical missing piece and there is no output schema to carry them. The `general` enum value is also left unexplained.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline by glossing the otherwise opaque enum values: 'dlp' means credential/PII leaks, 'sanctions' means sanctions screening, 'circuit_breaker' means loop limits. That mapping is genuinely more informative than the schema's bare 'The policy check category.' It still does not explain the accepted shapes of `content` beyond what the schema says.

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?

Specific verb ('Check') plus a clearly bounded resource ('content or parameters against security guardrails') and a parenthetical enumerating the three guardrail families. An agent immediately knows this is a screening/validation call. It stops short of naming how it differs from vizier_screen_action or vizier_verify_receipt, which is the only thing separating it from a 5.

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 guardrail categories imply when the tool applies (DLP before emitting secrets/PII, sanctions before transacting, circuit breaker before looping), but there is no explicit when-to-use instruction and no exclusion telling the agent to prefer a sibling. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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