policy_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at the payload (full policy with per-field provenance) but says nothing about read-only safety, missing-policy behavior, auth requirements, or error modes for a lookup tool.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The brevity is efficient, though it edges into under-specification rather than tight precision.

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 lookup this could be adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should cover return shape, missing-record behavior, and id semantics. It only gestures at provenance and leaves the rest unstated.

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?

The single required policy_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description should explain its expected format or source. It never mentions the parameter, leaving the one input completely undocumented.

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 phrase 'One policy in full' points to retrieving a single policy, which implicitly contrasts with the sibling policy_list. However, it omits an explicit verb (get/fetch/retrieve) and never names or rules out the list sibling, leaving the scope only implied.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this instead of policy_list or the report tools, and no mention of prerequisites such as where policy_id comes from. The agent must infer the use case entirely.

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