acedatacloud_get_coin_policies_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add some value by stating that backend account permissions and ownership checks apply plus an access level ('public'). However it says nothing about pagination behavior for limit/offset or side effects, so it only partially compensates for the missing annotations.

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 text is very short and front-loads the operation, but the opening clause is a redundant restatement of the name and the phrasing is stilted. It is brief but not particularly well-structured.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but three undocumented parameters, no usage context, and only a bare permission note leave the definition inadequate for a lookup tool with pagination options.

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 three parameters (id, limit, offset), and the description explains none of them. The required 'id' and the limiting/paging parameters are left entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Get coin policies id' essentially restates the tool name rather than explaining what a 'coin policy' is or what retrieving its 'id' returns. It gives a verb and a resource but no meaningful scope or differentiation from sibling get_* tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling lookup tools, nor any preconditions. The only contextual note is a permission requirement, which is not usage routing.

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