get_policy_exception

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered, but the description adds no behavioral context of its own: nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid record, what fields constitute "full details", or any permission requirements.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves "full details" undefined.

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 trivial single-parameter getter with annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but does not hint at what the returned record contains or how the two identifier formats are resolved, leaving the agent to discover the response shape by calling.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents both accepted formats (PERxxxxxxx or 32-char sys_id). The description's example "PER0000106" merely restates the schema pattern, so baseline 3 applies.

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 Policy Exception") and signals single-record scope, which implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_policy_exceptions. It does not name the sibling or clarify what "full details" encompasses, so it falls short of 5.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the lookup tool used after list_policy_exceptions returns an identifier, but the description never says when to use it, when not to, or what to do if the identifier is unknown.

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