Get Quality Policy

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the meaning of content_hash vs rules_hash, the nullability of derived_from name/hash when the source has been deleted, and the fact that 'nothing is written.' This helps the agent understand side effects and edge cases.

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 dense run-on sentence packed with field lists and parentheticals. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every piece adds information, but the lack of punctuation breaks makes it harder to parse. It is appropriately sized for the complexity but could be structured better with separate sentences or bullet-like breaks.

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 has an output schema, so return format is covered structurally. The description enriches context by explaining hash semantics, derived_from edge cases, and checks_summary composition. It includes the access note ('Shared viewers can read') and explicitly asserts no writes. For a read-only fetch with two params, this is quite complete, though it omits error behavior for missing policies.

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 compensate for parameter meaning. It does not. It never explains study_id or policy_id, nor whether policy_id is globally unique or scoped to the study. The only clue is the tool name and schema titles, which are generic. This is a significant gap for a tool with two required parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read one immutable policy in full' and enumerates the exact fields returned, including hashes and usage references. It differentiates from siblings like list_quality_policies (listing) and diff_quality_policies (comparing) through its focus on a single policy's full detail.

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 implies this is the detailed single-policy reader but never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives. The only sibling mention is 'see diff_quality_policies' in the context of the derived_from field, which is a cross-reference, not a when-to-use guide. There is no statement like 'for a list, use list_quality_policies' or 'for comparisons, use diff_quality_policies'.

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