Policies emergency access

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

The description says 'Get,' which implies a read operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. That is a direct contradiction. The description also does not disclose permission requirements, rate limits, or other 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 wasted wording. Its brevity contributes to the conciseness score, even though the overall definition remains under-specified.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description is not complete enough. It lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance, and its read-style wording conflicts with the readOnlyHint=false annotation.

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 has four parameters and 0% schema description coverage. The description only hints at an emergency-access identifier and does not explain emer_id, form, params, or json_body.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get org policies applicable to the emergency-access relationship.' It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby policy or emergency-access siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_policies, get_policy, or get_emergency_access. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'applicable to the emergency-access relationship.'

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