get_dns_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not mention potential errors, authentication, or side effects. However, for a simple retrieval tool with an output schema, this level of disclosure is adequate, though not rich.

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: one purpose statement followed by terse parameter explanations. Every word earns its place, and the most important instruction (REQUIRED for policy_id) is clearly highlighted. No unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and all parameters are explained with format and source, the description is complete for a straightforward single-resource fetch. It lacks explicit usage guidance or edge-case handling, but for this tool's simplicity, the essentials are covered.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: host (console name, ID, or composite ID), site (name or ID), and policy_id (required, sourced from list_dns_policies). This is comprehensive and directly actionable.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get a single DNS policy by ID.' It uses a specific verb (Get), identifies the resource (DNS policy), and emphasizes 'single' to differentiate from list operations. This makes it unambiguous among sibling tools like list_dns_policies.

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 for each parameter, especially explaining that policy_id should be obtained from list_dns_policies. While it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, the singular nature is implicit and the source of the ID is given, which guides correct usage.

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