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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the credential requirement ('none'), cost ('Free'), the authority boundary (only a signed-in account owner can adopt; an agent can merely point its operator), and the fields each entry returns. It omits pagination/result-count behavior, hence not a 5.

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?

The anthropomorphic first-person opener ('I want ready-made rules my operator could adopt, so that agents like me behave the way people expect') is redundant with the following sentence's 'any account can adopt for its agents' and pushes the actual verb ('Lists') into second position. The remaining sentences are tight and informative.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does so adequately (publisher, trusted-listing status, current account count, block and instruction counts). Combined with the credential/cost/adoption-authority notes, an agent can act on it without further information, though result-set size handling is unaddressed.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing schema-level the description fails to compensate for, and the fields it enumerates (publisher, trust flag, adoption count, block/instruction counts) describe the payload rather than the inputs.

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 concrete verb+resource: 'Lists House Rules books: sets of rules written by developers and companies that any account can adopt for its agents.' The scope is clear and the singular counterpart 'house_rules_book' is distinguishable by the index/plural framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 opening motivation ('ready-made rules my operator could adopt') implies the scenario, and it notes only a signed-in account owner can adopt while an agent can only point its operator to one. However, it never says when to use this index versus house_rules_book or read_rules, so routing is left to inference.

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