sootool.policy_get

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description adds value with the version-resolution model (as_of selects the in-force version, include_proposed extends to amendments) and the explicit error condition for invalid years. It says nothing about failure modes for missing policies or auth requirements, but for a read tool this is solid additional context.

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, front-loaded with the return value, then selection semantics, then the error case. No filler; every clause conveys a distinct behavior.

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 an output schema present, return-format explanation is optional, yet the description still summarizes what comes back (data, provenance, version) and covers resolution and error behavior. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: domain/name/year form the identifier, as_of is documented as YYYY-MM-DD selecting the version in force that day, and include_proposed toggles pre-finalization drafts. All four meaningful parameters gain semantics beyond their bare names.

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 and resource ('returns the content, source, and version info of one policy file'), and the singular 'one policy file' implicitly separates it from siblings like policy_list and policy_history. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema.

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?

Explains how to select a version via as_of and include_proposed, and warns that a nonexistent year errors out, which is real usage context. It does not explicitly route to alternatives (e.g., policy_list for enumeration, policy_diff for comparison), so the when-not guidance is missing.

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