Get the effective company skill policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the authorization class ('board_or_agent') and the exact HTTP method (GET) and path, providing useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise at two short sentences. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence provides distinct information: the purpose and the REST endpoint with auth.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, read-only). The description includes the endpoint and auth class. An output schema exists (not shown but indicated), so return value details are covered. Some might argue that the description could mention that the policy is effective (combining company-level and default), but it's not necessary given the low complexity.

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 one self-explanatory parameter (companyId) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter, but the parameter is obvious from the tool name and context. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the trivial parameter.

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 clearly states 'Get the effective company skill policy', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pc_put_companies_by_company_id_skill_policy and pc_delete_companies_by_company_id_skill_policy by implying it is the read operation. The inclusion of the REST endpoint further clarifies the purpose.

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 mentions authorization class ('board_or_agent') but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., when to get vs update vs delete the skill policy). Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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