dnsfilter_get_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates the operation is a read (Get) and lists what the response contains, but it does not mention potential side effects, error handling, or performance considerations. This is adequate but not rich; the read-only nature is inferred from the name and wording rather than explicitly stated.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then details the response contents. It is concise with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, the required input, and the source of that input. It does not discuss error cases or response format, but these are not critical for a get operation and the schema already covers parameter defaults.

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 100%—both 'id' and 'include_relationships' have descriptions. The description adds context by specifying that the ID comes from dnsfilter_list_policies, which reinforces the schema's hint, but it does not introduce new semantics beyond that. This meets 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 states a clear verb (Get), a specific resource (one policy's full configuration), and enumerates what is included (allow/block domain lists, category rules, applications, and network assignments). It also distinguishes itself from dnsfilter_list_policies by indicating this tool retrieves a single policy's details.

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 explicitly notes that a policy ID from dnsfilter_list_policies is required, giving a clear prerequisite and implying this tool is used after listing policies. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the single-policy vs list distinction is implicit and sufficient for most cases.

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