get_legal_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only operation via 'Fetch', which is non-destructive, but it does not disclose details such as return format, error behavior, or any prerequisites. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 read tool, the description states the core purpose and parameter usage. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the response contains (e.g., the policy text or metadata), leaving a minor but notable gap for agents unfamiliar with the API.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'handle', including an enum of valid values. The description only repeats 'by handle' without adding extra semantics, so it does not exceed the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Fetch a specific legal policy by handle' uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), identifies the resource ('legal policy'), and clarifies the scope ('specific' and 'by handle'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_legal_policies (plural) and get_shop_policies.

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?

The description implies usage when a specific policy handle is known, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but not fully explicit, and the sibling get_legal_policies could have been referenced for listing all policies.

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