Api policies object retrieve

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

The annotations explicitly declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description says the endpoint allows records to be 'viewed or edited', directly contradicting the structured safety metadata. The resource mismatch adds further confusion rather than useful behavioral 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no padding. However, its brevity is not useful because the content appears to be copied from another endpoint and does not earn its place.

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 retrieve-by-id tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum identify the policy object being retrieved and explain the id. Instead it misidentifies the resource and provides no return-value context or parameter semantics.

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%, so the description must explain the required 'id' parameter. It instead makes no mention of what the id identifies or how it is used, leaving the sole parameter semantically empty.

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 names the wrong resource entirely: it says the endpoint is for 'applied controls', while the tool is named for policies object retrieval. It also describes 'viewed or edited', which is neither specific to a single-object retrieve nor consistent with the tool name.

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 use this retrieve-by-id tool versus the many sibling list, object_retrieve, or search tools. No prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned.

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