get_compliance_policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety and side-effect profile is covered. The phrase 'full details' adds a modest signal that this returns the complete record rather than a summary, but nothing about field breadth, missing-record behavior, or permissions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Slight redundancy with the schema's identifier documentation, but nothing wasteful.

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?

A one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations; the description's 'full details' compensates adequately for the absence of an output schema. Only minor gaps remain (not-found handling, whether related controls/exceptions are included).

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 already documents both accepted identifier forms ('POLxxxxxxx' or 32-char sys_id). The description's example duplicates that, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 full details of a single Compliance Policy') and the word 'single' distinguishes it from the sibling list_compliance_policies without naming it explicitly. An agent can identify the operation, though sibling routing is only implied.

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?

Usage is implied by 'single ... by sys_id or number' — the agent infers this is for fetching one known policy rather than browsing. No explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives (list_compliance_policies, update_compliance_policy) are given.

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