ncloud_get_policy_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds useful return-content context (permission statement structure) beyond that annotation, but does not cover error modes, authentication needs, or response shape details. With the annotation covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate — some added value, but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the primary purpose is front-loaded, and the sibling differentiation earns its place in the second sentence. Every clause adds information an agent needs for selection or invocation.

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 2-param read-only detail tool with 100% schema coverage and a readOnlyHint annotation, nothing is missing. Although there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming the response content (service, actions, resource NRNs). An agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 100%, and the schema itself is unusually informative: policyId cross-references ncloud_list_policies, and withPermissions documents the API-vs-wrapper default discrepancy. The description adds only marginal semantic value (elaborating what NRNs permission statements contain). Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a policy's details') and goes further to specify exactly what those details include: permission statements with service, actions, and resource NRNs. The second sentence distinguishes it from ncloud_list_policies, which only returns names and descriptions, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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?

Provides an explicit when-to-use directive ('Use this to inspect what a policy actually grants') and names the exact alternative (ncloud_list_policies) with a contrast that implies the when-not case — if you only need names and descriptions, use that sibling. This mirrors the calibration standard for explicit alternative routing.

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