action1_get_policy_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only 'Show' operation and identifies the result states, but it does not mention pagination/limit behavior, how invalid policy IDs are handled, or any authorization requirements. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It uses a dash to efficiently convey the statuses covered, and every word earns its place.

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 the presence of an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is complete enough: it identifies the object (policy results), scope (per-endpoint), and included statuses. It doesn't explain response formatting, but the output schema covers that, and there are no nested objects or complex behaviors to warn about.

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 description doesn't need to explain parameters. The tool description adds only contextual meaning (results are per-endpoint) but no parameter syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('per-endpoint results for one policy'), and it names the outcome statuses (succeeded, failed, pending). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like action1_list_policies, which list policies rather than retrieving results for a specific policy.

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 'for one policy' establishes clear context that this is for drilling into results of a single policy. Although it doesn't name exclusions or explicit alternatives, the policy_id parameter description references action1_list_policies, reinforcing when it's appropriate.

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