get_probation_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only that the result is scoped to the signed-in employee (no user parameter). It says nothing about read-only semantics, error behavior when the employee has no probation record, or what the policy payload contains.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded fragment with no filler, which is appropriate for a trivial getter. It is terse to the point of being a sentence fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing 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 no-parameter, no-output-schema getter the description is minimally sufficient: an agent knows it retrieves the caller's probation policy. It does not describe the returned fields or edge cases (no probation set), leaving some uncertainty about what to expect.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

It names a specific resource (probation policy) scoped to the signed-in employee, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_leave_balance or get_attendance_policy. The verb is only implied by the tool name, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Given a sibling set with many near-identical policy tools, an explicit routing hint (e.g. vs. get_attendance_policy) would have been valuable, and none is present.

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