get_risk_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the 'empty/unlimited default' when not configured, which is useful. However, it does not mention any other behavioral traits such as permissions or error conditions, but for a read-only getter this is adequate.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a note about the default. Every word earns its place and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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 getter, the description covers the core behavior and default, but it does not describe the response structure or the optional parameters. Given no output schema, the description should provide more detail on what the returned policy looks like, but it is minimally adequate.

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 description does not explain any parameters explicitly. It indirectly refers to account via 'Hesabın' (account's), but request_id and idempotency_key are completely unmentioned. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('döner' = returns) and resource ('risk politikası' = risk policy), clearly indicating a getter operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_risk_policy and override_risk_policy by explicitly returning the current 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 description provides clear context that this is for reading the current risk policy, which is distinct from the write operations of sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not to use it, so it misses the top score.

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