lookup_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses important behavior: it performs a policy lookup without sending traffic and returns the matching policy or implicit deny. It does not discuss permissions or rate limits, but the core safety-relevant behavior is clear.

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 front-loaded and appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool. It moves directly from purpose to use case to parameters to return behavior with no wasted text.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description fills the important gaps by explaining the return value and the no-traffic behavior. It is nearly complete, though it could mention prerequisites such as the device needing to be known or accessible.

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 parameters. The description restates most parameters and adds a small note that source_interface improves accuracy, but otherwise does not add much beyond the schema.

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: asking the FortiGate which firewall policy a hypothetical flow would match. It also clarifies the monitoring endpoint and that no traffic is sent, which distinguishes it from policy listing/detail tools and from traffic-sending tools like ping.

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 gives a clear use case: answering whether host X reaches server Y on port Z and through which rule. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the hypothetical/no-traffic framing provides strong implied guidance.

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