get_approval_policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the specific return fields, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose error handling, not-found behavior, or whether an inactive policy is still returned. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then immediately states the scope and return fields. Every word contributes information; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the key elements: what it returns (fields) and how it identifies the resource (by ID). It omits edge cases like non-existent policies or inactive records, but these are minor for such a simple operation, and annotations already confirm the read-only nature.

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 the single parameter policy_id is well documented as 'UUID da política'. The description's 'por ID' aligns with the parameter meaning but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retorna' = returns), a specific resource (approval policy), and a distinct scope (by ID). It also lists the returned fields (name, stages with approvers, is_active), making it easy to distinguish from list_approval_policies, create_approval_policy, and update_approval_policy even without naming them.

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?

The phrase 'por ID' implies the tool should be used when a specific policy_id is known, contrasting implicitly with list_approval_policies. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions. The usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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