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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses substantive behavior: the exact return shape, that returned === total with no pagination, the meaning of usageCount, and the semantics of scope and query as a substring on NAME only. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 dense and front-loads the core purpose and return shape. A few phrasings repeat the schema (e.g., scope enum, query substring), but they are integrated with extra context rather than pure duplication, and no sentence is gratuitous.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, which it does: {rules:[...], returned, total}, plus pagination behavior and usageCount semantics. It also points to get_rule for full details, making the tool's scope complete for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 covers query and scope, but project_id has no schema description; the description fills that gap by explaining it is optional, how it is inferred for single-project customers, and when list_projects must be called. It also adds operational nuance to query (coarse pre-filter, non-unique names, disambiguation duty) that goes beyond the schema text.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the product rules (Attribute Rules) available to a project.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_rule ('Use get_rule to fetch a rule's full rules[]') and from the broader rule lifecycle tools, so an agent can confidently separate list from create/update/delete/get operations.

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 gives explicit conditional guidance: scope selects which library, query is a coarse pre-filter, and project_id is optional for single-project customers but required otherwise, with the instruction to call list_projects in that case. It even warns about non-unique rule names and advises the agent to confirm matches — clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use direction.

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