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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by disclosing that the result is the full policy text formatted as markdown, which is beyond what the annotations or schema specify.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the resource, format, and allowed policy types. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple read-only lookup with one required enum parameter and an optional locale documented in the schema, the description is complete. It explains the return format (markdown full text) and the policy types, so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 50%; the locale parameter is well documented in the schema, while the policy parameter has only an enum. The description restates the enum values in prose but adds little semantic meaning beyond what the enum already conveys. It does not explain locale behavior or defaulting, though the schema covers that.

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 ('get') and resource ('store policy'), specifies the output format (markdown full text), and enumerates the exact policy types. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and naturally distinguishes it from content-retrieval siblings like get_blog_post or get_site_info.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving store policy text, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The resource scope makes the intended use reasonably clear, but no direct guidance or alternative routing is provided.

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