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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds that the tool reads policy, version, voting thresholds, and recovery hints, which is useful, but it does not disclose extra behavioral traits like response size, error conditions, or default detail behavior. With the annotations covering the main concerns, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is appended efficiently. The 'id=space' prefix is terse but informative and does not waste words.

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?

The description tells the agent what the tool returns and when to call it, which is essential for a read-only policy lookup. It does not explain the detail parameter's effect on output granularity or the max_tokens budget, but those are fully covered by the schema. For this tool's complexity, the description is nearly complete.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description's 'id=space' shorthand adds minimal interpretation by tying the id parameter to a space resource, but it does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics 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 clearly identifies the verb ('Read'), the resource ('policy'), and the specific data elements returned: policy, version, voting thresholds, and recovery hints. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_space, but the policy-specific focus distinguishes it sufficiently.

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 phrase 'before taking group decisions' gives a clear, actionable usage context: consult this tool when you need governance parameters before acting. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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