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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers read-only behavior; the description adds context about returned data (scopes, components, impact) without conflicting with the annotation.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loads the primary action. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Covers what is returned, level requirements, and the distinction from org-level. Does not mention errors or edge cases, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity and available annotations.

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?

All four parameters are effectively explained: policyId implied by 'Get one header policy', level and specId clarified by 'spec needs specId or project', and includeImpact detailed with its effect. Schema coverage is 100% and description adds meaningful nuances.

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 it retrieves a single header policy with its scopes, components, and rowVersion, distinguishing it from listing (get_header_policies) and org-level (get_org_header_policy).

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?

Explicitly explains when to use (spec or project level), the need for specId at spec level, and directs org-level usage to a sibling tool. Also notes the includeImpact option is spec-level only.

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