get_dapa_policy_page

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool returns the entire page body, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose return format, error behavior, or any additional constraints. 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the action, resource, and parameter source in one compact statement.

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?

The tool is simple: one parameter, no output schema, and rich safety annotations. The description covers what the tool returns (full body text) and the prerequisite ID source. It is complete enough for the low complexity, though a bit more detail about response format would be ideal.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that the single 'id' parameter is the ID received from search_dapa_policy. This gives the parameter semantic meaning beyond the raw schema, though it does not specify the ID format or how to extract it from search results.

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 clearly states the action ('retrieves the full body text') and the resource ('work/policy page'), and specifies that the ID comes from search_dapa_policy. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dapa_legal_content and search_dapa_policy itself.

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 provides a clear usage context: call this after search_dapa_policy to fetch the full page body for a returned ID. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the ID-source constraint makes the intended workflow obvious.

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