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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful organizational scope, but does not mention permission requirements, not-found behavior, or any other operational caveat beyond what annotations provide.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, which suits a simple get-by-id tool. The phrasing 'one policies record' is slightly awkward, but structure and size are otherwise appropriate.

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, annotations cover safety characteristics, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it leaves the required id parameter semantically undefined and gives no routing guidance among related policy tools.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate for the undocumented id parameter. It does not explain that id is the policy identifier, nor does it add meaning beyond the schema's pattern and length constraints.

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: read one policy record. It also scopes the operation to 'this organization' and distinguishes singular retrieval from listing tools. It does not explicitly contrast with close siblings such as get_policy_workspace or get_policy_assignment.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'Read one': use it when retrieving a single policy. The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of list_policies, get_policy_workspace, or export_policy_pdf.

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