get_policyRetrieve detailed information about a specific U.S. federal policy by its ID (e.g., "bill-119-hr-22" or "eo-2025-1234").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policy_id | Yes | Policy ID (e.g., "bill-119-hr-22" or "eo-2025-1234") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the ID format examples but no additional behavioral details about return format, pagination, or what constitutes 'detailed information'. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 concise sentence that immediately states the verb, resource, and identifier format. No redundant information.
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 tool is simple with one parameter and read-only annotation, but the description does not clarify what information is returned or differentiate from the sibling get_policy_text tool. The lack of an output schema makes this somewhat incomplete for an agent to know what to expect.
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?
The input schema fully describes the single parameter policy_id with the same examples as the description. The description adds no additional 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 clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific U.S. federal policy by ID, with concrete ID examples. It distinguishes from get_policy_text implicitly by saying 'detailed information' rather than 'text', but does not explicitly differentiate.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_policy_text or search_policies. It does not mention any exclusion or alternative tools, so the agent must infer when to use this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: efforts, members, policies, stories, representatives, voter info, and text retrieval. Even similar tools like get_effort and resolve_effort clearly differ in input type (ID vs natural language), and get_stories vs get_story follow the standard list/detail distinction.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lower_snake_case: get_ for retrieval, search_ for queries, and resolve_ for name resolution. Nouns are clear and descriptive, with no mixing of styles or inconsistent verbs.
With 12 tools, the set is well-scoped for a U.S. political policy tracking service. Each tool provides a distinct utility without overwhelming the surface, fitting solidly within the expected range.
The tool surface covers the core read-only workflows: searching and retrieving policies and members, resolving and retrieving efforts, listing and retrieving story bundles, and looking up representatives and voter info. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends for the stated purpose.