Check a plan against the code of conduct

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Nothing is fetched,' implying no data access or side effects, and explains what the tool returns. It could go further on edge cases like what triggers 'allowed-with-alert,' but it is transparent about the core behavior.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives return details and a concrete usage pattern. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, side effects, return values, and how to invoke it. The optional entities parameter is fully documented in the schema, so no critical information is missing.

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 input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces the idea of passing tool calls in order and translating a request into calls, but it adds limited new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource: ask whether a sequence of tool calls would be allowed, before running any of them. It also names the return values (decision, rule, clause, remediation), which makes the tool's function unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling tools like aggrete__scenarios.

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 clearly says when to use it: before running any tool calls, and to answer 'can I do X?' questions by translating the request into tool calls. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the usage context is strong.

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