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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds valuable context: the isDefault flag semantics and the project context requirement. It does not mention error cases or response format, but for a simple read-only getter with annotations, this is sufficient and adds meaningful behavior beyond the structured data.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the isDefault clarification and then routing/prerequisite guidance. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is clean.

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 simple one-parameter getter with read-only annotation, the description covers what it does, what the response means (reviewers/guards, isDefault), and how to change it. It is complete for an agent to call correctly without additional context.

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 100%, with specId fully described as 'Public ID (GUID) of the API specification'. The description does not add any additional semantics for the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'merge policy of a spec', and elaborates on what it contains (reviewer count and guards). It also explains the isDefault flag, which distinguishes the meaning of the response. This is specific and differentiates from sibling policy getters like get_alert_policy or get_deprecation_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 names the alternative tool (update_merge_policy) and the condition for using it ('to change it'). Also notes 'Requires project context', which hints at a prerequisite. This is clear routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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