get_local_in_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the response shape (status/policy/message) and that failures surface a message. It says nothing about permissions, read-only semantics (only implied by 'Get'), or behavior when the policy ID does not exist.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by args, returns, and a short example, all compact. The Returns block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, and the example mainly reconfirms positional argument order.

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 three-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers purpose and response shape adequately. It leaves notable gaps on how to obtain the policy ID and what ADOM/package naming constraints apply, which matter given zero schema descriptions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only restates the parameter names ('adom: ADOM name', 'package: Policy package name', 'policyid: Local-in policy ID number'). It adds no format hints, valid value sources, or how to discover a policyid.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific IPv4 local-in policy'), and the IPv4 qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from get_local_in_policy6 and list_local_in_policies. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., ADOM locked or not), and no comparison to alternatives like list_local_in_policies or get_local_in_policy6. Only the tool name implies its role as a single-record fetch.

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