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 real behavioral context beyond that: output is capped at 8 candidates, ranked by a heuristic text/token match, and the results are explicitly labeled guesses rather than findings whose truth is settled by each rule's when_to_apply. The one gap is return format/shape.

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 sentences with no filler, front-loading what the tool does and the ranking basis before the caveat about interpreting results. Every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ranking basis, result cap, and the critical interpretation caveat. It stops short of describing the return structure (rule ids, scores, ordering) and the meaning of the 'code' input, which would make it fully self-contained.

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?

There is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema documents nothing about it. The description only indirectly clarifies that 'code' is the code snippet being matched, adding minimal meaning beyond the field name and no format, size, or language constraints.

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 (ranks) plus resource (Boosthis rules) and the exact mechanism it uses: id tokens and when_to_apply text, capped at 8 candidates. That mechanism is unique among siblings such as boosthis_list_rules and boosthis_get_rule, so an agent can tell them apart without opening a schema.

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: the tool takes a code snippet and returns candidate rules, so the reader infers it is for finding rules relevant to code. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. list_rules vs. this), so guidance 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.