get_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what information is included (criteria, codes, attachments, version history) but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. The examples help illustrate usage but don't add behavioral context beyond what's already 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and examples. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second when to use it, the third details included information, and the examples illustrate parameter usage. No wasted words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by specifying the tool's purpose, usage context, and included data types. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., response structure, error cases) and doesn't fully compensate for the missing output schema, though the examples provide some insight into returns.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (policy_id and include) with their types and descriptions. The description adds minimal value by showing example usage with the parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details for policy_id or how 'include' values combine.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific Medicare coverage policy', distinguishing it from siblings like search_policies (which finds policies) and lookup_code (which finds codes). It specifies the exact scope of information retrieved: criteria, codes, attachments, and version history.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this after finding a policy ID from search_policies or lookup_code.' It provides clear context for usage and distinguishes it from alternatives by specifying it's for detailed information on a specific policy, not for searching or comparing.

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