get_dfw_policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the return shape ('one policy object, not an envelope'), the specific fields returned, and the workflow ordering with list_dfw_policies and list_dfw_rules. No annotations are contradicted.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the read intent and the key return shape, then provide usage chain and a constraint. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 single-resource read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return content, the correct input source, the input constraint, and the follow-up action. Combined with the covering annotations and complete input schema, an agent has everything needed to call 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema by specifying that policy_id must be an id, 'never a display name,' and that it should come from list_dfw_policies. This clarifies how to supply the required parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details of a single DFW security policy.' It explicitly contrasts with list_dfw_policies by saying it returns one policy object, not an envelope, so an agent can clearly distinguish this from the sibling list operation.

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?

It gives direct when-to-use guidance: 'Use it once list_dfw_policies has narrowed to one id — never a display name.' It also names the next step, 'Then call list_dfw_rules for the rules inside,' and implicitly excludes display-name lookup. No inference is required.

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