get_conditional_access_policy_by_id

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 only states a read operation ('Get') and vague 'comprehensive details', but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), rate limits, or what 'comprehensive' actually includes. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 concise sentence, immediately front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler or redundant phrases. It communicates the core purpose efficiently.

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 with one parameter and an output schema present, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks any mention of related workflow (e.g., 'list policies first' or use with a specific sibling) and gives no context about when this tool is the right choice. The description is minimally sufficient but not fully complete for an agent deciding among many sibling tools.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter (policy_id), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond reaffirming 'by its ID' and does not provide extra context about the parameter format, constraints, or examples, which is acceptable given the schema already describes it well.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('conditional access policy') with an explicit qualifier ('single' and 'by its ID'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_conditional_access_policies' which lists policies. The addition of 'with comprehensive details' clarifies the scope of the returned data.

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?

Usage is implied by the description and tool name (use when you have a policy ID and need one policy), but no explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_conditional_access_policies. There is no mention of when not to use it or what other tools might be more appropriate.

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