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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only', which aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It adds value by clarifying it includes proposals and the type of data returned, which is beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 description is concise, two sentences, with the most critical information (what it lists and read-only) front-loaded. No unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes.

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 tool is a simple read-only list with one optional parameter. The description covers the purpose, scope (active and proposals), and return fields. It lacks explicit examples or related siblings, but given the simplicity and annotations, it is largely complete.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the 'company' parameter, explaining it is optional and which company. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficient. 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 clearly states it lists saved bookkeeping rules for a connected company, specifying the scope ('including active rules and proposals awaiting user approval') and the return fields ('id, source and evidence'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_proposals and list_loops by focusing on rules and their approval status.

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 description implies when to use this tool: when you need to view saved rules or pending proposals. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_proposals or search functions. The context of 'connected company' is provided but not elaborately.

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