Show one DLP policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying command ('pac admin dlp-policy show') and that it runs with the active pac auth profile, which is useful operational context, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions, or side effects beyond what 'show' implies.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the command used. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 simple read-style admin tool with fully documented parameters, the description explains the return contents ('connector classification and the environments it applies to') and the execution context. It is largely complete, though it could say more about the read-only nature and when to prefer this over the list sibling.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including policyName. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource and scope: 'One data loss prevention policy in full: its connector classification and the environments it applies to.' This distinguishes it from the list sibling by emphasizing a single full policy, though it does not name cs_admin_list_dlp_policies as the alternative in the main description.

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 phrase 'One data loss prevention policy in full' implies this tool is for inspecting a single policy rather than enumerating policies, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus cs_admin_list_dlp_policies. Usage is left to inference from the scope wording.

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