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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a non-destructive read, so the description's main remaining duty is to explain behavior beyond that, and it does not. It says nothing about what happens when the optional version is omitted (latest? error?), whether unpublished or non-existent versions error out, or that a workspaceToken is required for scoping.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is terse rather than padded, though the terseness leaves gaps that other dimensions penalize.

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?

With four undocumented parameters (0% coverage), no output schema, and no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, the description needs to explain versioning defaults, required scoping, and return shape. A seven-word sentence leaves an agent unable to call this tool confidently.

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% across four parameters, so the description must carry the load and largely does not. Only the word "version" loosely maps to the version parameter; workspaceToken, policyId, and operationId are given no meaning or format guidance.

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?

States a specific verb ("Retrieve") and a specific resource ("a saved private data-quality policy version"), so an agent knows this is a version-specific read of a stored policy. It does not differentiate from plausible siblings such as quality_policy_history or quality_policy_evaluate, leaving the boundary to be inferred.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. The word "saved" hints that the policy must already exist, but nothing tells the agent when to pick this over history or evaluate.

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