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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral constraint — only 'published' policies are returned — and describes the returned payload, which is useful given there is no output schema. It does not, however, describe error/not-found behavior or whether the id can be stale.

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?

One economical sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the resource being fetched. It is a sentence fragment rather than a full clause, but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (section, text, page, edition, source) and the publication scope. The main gap is the absence of usage routing to find_policies, which is minor for such a simple tool.

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% and the single policy_id parameter is documented as coming from find_policies. The description adds nothing about the id beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource — a single published academic policy — and enumerates what it returns (section, verbatim text, page, edition, source). This implicitly distinguishes it from the plural search-oriented sibling find_policies, though the read verb itself is only carried by the name.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The 'one ... policy' framing and the schema note ('A policy id from find_policies') imply a lookup-by-id flow, but neither the description nor any exclusions tell the agent when to prefer this over find_policies.

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