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

No parameters and readOnlyHint=true means the safety profile is already covered by annotations. The description adds that results are scoped to 'this runtime' and returned as ids and titles, which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, but it doesn't mention size, ordering, or pagination behavior.

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 short sentences, zero waste, and the key scoping constraint ('available to this runtime') is front-loaded. The second sentence functions as a precise pointer to the sibling that consumes the output.

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 zero-param, read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the handoff to boosthis_get_rule. An agent can call it correctly. It lacks only minor operational detail like ordering or result size.

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. The description adds a returned-content signal (ids and titles), which is slightly beyond the no-param baseline without needing to explain 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?

Specific verb+resource: lists performance rules as ids and titles. It also distinguishes itself from its closest sibling by naming boosthis_get_rule as the consumer of this index, so an agent knows this is the discovery entry point.

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?

Positions the tool as 'the index for boosthis_get_rule,' which tells the agent when to call it: first, to discover ids, then hand off to get_rule for details. It stops short of an explicit when-not statement, but the routing relationship is clear.

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