optimization_policy_get

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 genuine value with "resolved balanced thresholds," signaling thresholds are computed/inherited rather than stored raw, but it doesn't explain the resolution logic or error behavior for a missing policy.

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 tight sentence with the action and the key qualifier (resolved thresholds) front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it is terse enough to leave real questions unanswered.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the undocumented `policy` parameter and the meaning of "resolved," which keeps this from being fully complete.

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 67%: profile and adAccountId are documented in the schema while the required `policy` parameter is undocumented. The description's "one named optimization policy" partially compensates by implying `policy` is a name selector, but it doesn't state the name format or whether it scopes within the given profile/ad account.

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 names a specific verb (read) and resource (one named optimization policy), and "one" implicitly contrasts with the list sibling. It does not name optimization_policies_list explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 by "one named" — an agent can infer this fetches a single policy rather than enumerating them. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer optimization_policies_list or optimization_plan, and no statement about behavior when the policy name is unknown.

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