get_data_management_policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that the response is composite (policy plus its table's archive rules), but says nothing about what happens if no archive rules exist, or about 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. It is efficient, though its brevity is a byproduct of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should carry more weight. It states roughly what comes back but leaves the identifier semantics, failure behavior, and policy concept undefined, which is thin for a detail-retrieval tool.

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?

There is one required parameter, sys_id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains that sys_id is the policy's system identifier or what format it takes.

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?

Clear verb ('Get') plus a specific resource ('Data Management Policy') and an explicit statement that archive rules for the associated table come back with it. This partially separates it from list_data_management_policies and list_archive_rules, but it never names those siblings or states that it is the single-record counterpart.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of list_data_management_policies or list_archive_rules, and no prerequisites or required identifiers mentioned. The composite nature of the return hints at the use case, but the agent must infer it.

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