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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description reinforces this with 'Get' and by describing the returned data: scopes, header components, rowVersion, and optional impact details. It does not mention errors or authorization, but the annotation lowers the bar for behavioral disclosure.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the primary purpose in the first sentence and optional behavior described in the final sentence. No filler or redundant information is present.

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 adequately conveys the expected return contents and the optional impact mode, while also noting the project context prerequisite. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the exact response shape would improve completeness, but the current description is sufficient for practical use.

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 complete, and the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains how level controls scope, that specId is required for spec-level reads, and that includeImpact only works at spec level. This gives agents enough context to populate parameters correctly.

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?

Clearly states a specific action: get one header policy along with its scopes, assigned header components, and rowVersion. The tool is distinguished from sibling tools like get_header_policies and list_header_policies by focusing on a single policy object.

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?

Provides practical usage guidance by explaining the 'spec' vs 'project' level distinction, noting that specId is required for spec level, and clarifying that includeImpact only applies at spec level. It also mentions the prerequisite of project context, though it does not explicitly contrast with listing or alternative tools.

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