policy_policy_assignments__get_policy_assignment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description's help. The description adds nothing beyond repeating the operation, omitting useful context such as error behavior for a missing assignment, rate limits, or the fact that the 'fields' projection is applied locally rather than forwarded upstream.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the operation, and the HTTP path is a useful anchor for an agent. It is mildly redundant, restating 'policy assignment' three times across two clauses, but there is no filler to trim beyond that.

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 single-resource GET with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the essential mechanics. However, with no output schema present, 'Get details' gives no indication of what the returned object contains, which is the main remaining gap for an agent deciding whether a fetch will answer its question.

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%, and both parameters are documented in-schema, including the local-only nature of the 'fields' projection and the assignmentUuid format constraints. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get ... the given policy assignment') and includes the underlying HTTP route, so an agent can tell this is a single-item lookup rather than a list. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling list_policy_assignments, leaving that routing to be inferred from the required UUID.

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 only implied by the required assignmentUuid: fetch one assignment when you already hold its identifier. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_policy_assignments (e.g. 'use when you need full detail for a known UUID'), and no mention of what happens with an unknown or stale UUID.

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