search_ranger_policies

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the policy_type mapping, failing to mention pagination (page_size, start_index), default behavior with no filters, response format, or any side effects. The tool is a search operation, but safety and limits are unaddressed.

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 extremely brief, but conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness. It front-loads the purpose but lacks structure and fails to cover essential details. Every sentence earns its place, but the description is too sparse to be genuinely helpful.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not clarify filtering logic, pagination, or what happens with multiple filters. The agent cannot form a correct request based on this description alone.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only covers policy_type with a numeric mapping, leaving 7 other parameters (service_name, policy_name, etc.) completely unexplained. The agent cannot infer their meaning or usage from the description alone.

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 'Search Ranger policies' which is a verb+resource, but it is nearly a tautology of the tool name. It adds minor value by explaining the policy_type mapping, but does not distinguish this search tool from sibling tools like search_tag_based_policies or other CRUD operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparison with similar tools. The agent has no context to decide if search_ranger_policies is appropriate.

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