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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information by spelling out the shape of the returned Markdown (per-rule severity, check, message, remediation), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of mentioning failure modes or cost.

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?

Two tight sentences: the capability and its output come first, the input selection follows. There is no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

The output is well described, which offsets the missing output schema. But the description's implied `ruleset`/`profile` arguments are absent from the declared schema and `context` is never mentioned in the description, so an agent still has to guess the exact invocation shape for a zero-required-parameter tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does add useful semantics by naming the curated `profile` values (owasp, problem-details, fhir, api-authorization), but it also references `ruleset` and `profile` as if they were declared parameters when the schema only formally defines `context`, leaving an agent to infer how those are passed via additionalProperties.

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 ("Generate human-readable Markdown documentation for a ruleset") and enumerates the output contents (severity, what it checks, message, fix). This clearly separates it from validate_ruleset, test_ruleset, and describe_rule, which operate on rules rather than producing rendered docs.

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 second sentence tells the agent how to select input ("Pass `ruleset`, or `profile` for a curated one"), which implies the two ways to invoke it. However, it never states when this tool should be preferred over siblings like describe_rule or explain_rule_result, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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