get_expense_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the data scope (signed-in employee), implying auth-context usage, but says nothing about read-only safety, return format, pagination, or error behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded phrase with no waste. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it is arguably too terse to be fully self-contained.

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 zero-parameter read tool, the description identifies the resource and scope. However, with no annotations or output schema, it does not describe the return shape or confirm read-only nature, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because none exist; the empty schema already communicates all invocation requirements.

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 names a specific resource (expense policy) and scope (signed-in employee), making its purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling policy getters like get_timesheet_policy, but the resource noun does the distinguishing.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The phrase 'for the signed-in employee' implies context but does not tell an agent when to choose this over get_expense_claims or other policy tools.

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