Get the organization's rules for a resource type

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a non-obvious edge behavior: an empty explanatory result when no policy exists is normal, not an error. It also describes what the call returns conceptually. It could additionally state read-only/auth expectations, but the 'Get' semantics make these fairly inferable.

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 tightly packed sentences: purpose with examples, usage trigger with rationale, and edge-case behavior. The key verb and object appear in the first clause, and no sentence is redundant.

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 output schema covers return shape, so the description need not restate it, and the empty-result behavior is well handled. Still, with no annotations and an undocumented 'provider' parameter, plus no sibling differentiation, the overall context is not fully complete for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It clarifies 'resource_type' indirectly through the phrase 'for a resource type' but never explains the 'provider' parameter, accepted values, or how the two parameters interact. This leaves a meaningful documentation gap.

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: 'Get this organization's own infrastructure policy requirements for a resource type' with concrete examples such as approved regions, required tags, and mandatory settings. The timing cue 'BEFORE writing the Terraform' also helps distinguish it from later-stage tools.

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?

Explicitly directs when to use it: 'Call this first whenever you are about to create a resource' and explains the benefit of satisfying policy on the first attempt. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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