Show one DLP policy

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does add useful context by stating the exact pac command ('pac admin dlp-policy show') and that it uses the active auth profile, and 'show' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it describe output format, error conditions, or authorization needs.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the tool's purpose and then provide the key execution detail (the pac command and auth profile). Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundant repetition of the title or schema.

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 a straightforward show operation with fully documented parameters sideways, the description covers the core output content ('connector classification and the environments it applies to') and the execution mechanism. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough insight into what the result contains. It is slightly incomplete in not stating any output format or edge cases, but it is largely sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, with all five parameters already documented in the input schemaSer the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond 'policy in full' and the underlying command. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 a specific verb ('show'), resource ('data loss prevention policy'), and scope ('One ... in full'), and hints at the distinguishing factor from the sibling list tool by emphasizing the full policy details. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with cs_admin_list_dlp_policies, so it falls just short of 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as cs_admin_list_dlp_policies for browsing policies or other admin tools. It mentions the underlying command and active auth profile, but offers no context for selecting this tool or what prerequisites are needed beyond a policy name.

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