policy_get_decisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that results are paginated and that supplying dryRunId changes the response shape to include a completion flag — useful given there is no output schema. It does not explain paging behavior or result shape otherwise.

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?

Front-loaded and short, but the first sentence ('Fetch a list of policy decisions') is a near-duplicate of the second ('Returns a paginated list of policy decisions'), so one sentence does not earn its place. The endpoint path is appended without being framed as useful context.

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?

Adequate for a 10-parameter list tool whose schema documents the filters, but it omits meaningful gaps: the schema exposes two competing pagination styles (top/skip vs page/size) with no guidance on which to use, and no description of the paged result envelope. With no output schema, more return-shape detail would have helped.

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 coverage is 90%, so the baseline would be 3; however the one parameter with no schema description (dryRunId, only format: uuid) is exactly the one the description explains, including its effect on the response. That fills the single documentation gap in the parameter set.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a list of policy decisions', and 'paginated list' confirms it is the collection endpoint, distinguishing it implicitly from policy_get_decision_by_id. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the list/query tool and that passing dryRunId switches it into dry-run status checking. There is no statement of when to prefer policy_get_policies or policy_get_decision_by_id, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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