policy_get_policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful org-scoping and pagination context, but says nothing about default page size, total counts, or what happens when no policies match.

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?

Three short lines with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The trailing raw endpoint line is slightly redundant with the title but costs little.

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?

For an 11-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description omits any explanation of the filtering, sorting, or expansion options (search, sort, expandDefinition, expandOpaRegoCriteria) that an agent would need in order to choose parameters intelligently.

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 82%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only gestures at pagination and adds no meaning for undocumented params such as typeId and computeStats, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 clear verb and resource ('Returns a paginated list of policies') and adds the scope ('associated with current org'), which distinguishes it from siblings like policy_get_policy (single) and policy_get_decisions. It does not explicitly name those siblings, keeping it below a 5.

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?

'Find all the policies associated with current org' implies the retrieval context but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not point to policy_get_policy for single-item fetches or policy_get_types for type metadata.

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