get_policy_interests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a safe read of static reference data and it says what is returned, which is adequate for a no-param lookup, but it never explicitly states this is read-only, requires no authentication, or that it takes no arguments.

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 front-loaded pipe-delimited summary is efficient, but the trailing 'Returns:' paragraph restates the same fact ('list of policy interest categories with IDs') already conveyed in the opening line, creating 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?

For a simple, argument-free reference lookup with an output schema present, the description covers purpose and usage sufficiently and need not explain return values. Its only shortfall is not resolving the overlap with the 'interests_categories' sibling.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond noting that no arguments are needed, which it implicitly conveys.

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 clear verb+resource ('Get policy interest reference data') and clarifies it returns policy interest categories with IDs. It is distinct enough from siblings like get_member_registered_interests, but it does not differentiate itself from the very similar-sounding sibling 'interests_categories', which an agent would have trouble choosing between.

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 one concrete use case ('Use to get IDs for filtering member searches by policy interest'), which is helpful context. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not-to-use guidance, which is a real gap given the several overlapping interest-related siblings in the toolset.

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