Get one policy's full configuration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the structure of the returned configuration (AND'd rows of OR'd include/exclude conditions), the fact that it includes every field exposed by the edit surface, and the important fact that policy mutations are full replaces—meaning you must see the full current state before updating. This goes beyond a simple 'fetch' and reveals significant 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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second differentiates from the summary tool, and the third gives a critical usage warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the key action and differentiating details. It is neither too long nor short.

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 description is contextually complete for a get-by-id tool. It lists the key fields returned (scope, schedule, severity, notifications, protocol/port group), notes the special case for Communication/Protocol-schema policies, and includes the crucial behavior of update_policy being a full replace. The output schema exists, so return format details need not be in the description. This gives the agent all needed context for correct tool selection and invocation.

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?

There is only one parameter, policy_id, with no schema description (0% coverage). The description clarifies that the tool fetches by id, so the parameter refers to the policy identifier. While it doesn't explicitly explain where to find the id (e.g., from list_detection_policies), the parameter name and 'by id' are sufficient for a simple string parameter. The description adds enough meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 purpose: 'Fetch one policy's COMPLETE configuration by id' with specific scope details (source/destination asset-group, schedule, severity, notification actions). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_detection_policies which returns a summary, and from update_policy. This is a specific verb + resource with clear differentiation from 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Unlike list_detection_policies's summary, this returns every field...' and 'Call this BEFORE update_policy — Tenable OT's policy mutations are full replaces, not patches'. This tells the agent when to use this tool, which alternative to use instead, and the critical prerequisite for update_policy. Excellent and directly actionable.

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