Get Deprecation Policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' verb aligns with that without contradiction. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that organization context is required and enumerates what policy aspects the response covers, which helps an agent anticipate the result. No destructive or side-effect behavior is implied.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then gives a compact list of returned fields, and ends with a meaningful precondition. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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-only getter with no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It names the resource, describes the returned policy components, connects the tool to the creation flow where it matters, and states the organizational context requirement.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 ('Get') and a clear resource ('the organization's deprecation policy') and enumerates the exact contents returned: minimum grace period, migration guide requirements, successor/approval requirements, and reminder schedule. This makes it clearly distinct from related tools like get_deprecation_plan or list_deprecations by focusing on the organizational policy rather than individual plans.

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 clear context: this tool returns the organizational policy that governs deprecation plan creation, and it explicitly connects to manage_deprecation_plan('create') as the process being checked against. It also notes that organization context is required. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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