getQosPolicy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload contains DSCP marking rules for outbound traffic, which is useful content context, but says nothing about whether a default site is silently substituted or what happens when no policy is configured. The schema covers the siteId default, so this is a modest addition rather than a gap.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource named first, which is the right front-loading for a lookup tool. The phrase 'outbound traffic' appears twice, which is slightly redundant, but nothing else is wasted.

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 read-only, single-optional-parameter getter with no output schema, the description supplies enough: what is fetched, at which scope, and the headline content (DSCP rules for outbound traffic). Only the absent-configuration behavior and the relationship to overlapping QoS tools are left uncovered.

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 the single siteId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the default-site fallback and the listSites discovery hint. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get the gateway QoS policy) scoped to a site, and parenthetically clarifies the content as outbound traffic tagging with DSCP marking rules. It is clearly a read of gateway-level QoS rather than the AP-level or class-rule siblings, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as getApQosConfig, getGatewayQosClassRules, or getTrafficPriority, all of which live in the same domain and are easy to confuse with this tool. The only usage signal is the implicit 'read a site's QoS policy' framing.

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