bitdefender_get_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses useful behavioral detail: the call returns a complete settings object plus metadata fields, and it requires a policy ID from a specific sibling. It does not discuss errors or permissions, but as a read-only get-by-ID operation, the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The primary action and return contents are front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated in the second sentence. Every clause adds necessary information.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema get tool, the description covers the key things: what is returned, the scope of the object, and where the required ID comes from. Minor omissions like error behavior are not critical for this low-risk read operation.

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 100%, and the schema already documents policyId as coming from bitdefender_list_policies. The description repeats that same source requirement without adding new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 full detail for one security policy.' It enumerates the returned contents (creator, dates, settings object), which is a concrete scope. The reference to bitdefender_list_policies also distinguishes it from the 'list' sibling and from get_endpoint.

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 clearly establishes the prerequisite: 'Requires a policy ID from bitdefender_list_policies.' This tells the agent when and how to call the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, but the get-by-ID vs list distinction is strongly implied.

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