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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'retiring a retired rule changes nothing' largely restates the annotation rather than adding new information. What the description does add is that the rule is archived to history rather than deleted, which supports the non-destructive hint, but it omits what permissions are needed and whether retirement can be undone.

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, the core action front-loaded, and the edge case (already retired) stated immediately after. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety and idempotency, this is nearly complete. Minor gaps: no mention of behavior when rule_id is unknown, and no note that reason is optional.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema itself ('rule_id from line_rider_list', 'Why the rule leaves the rider'). The description's phrase 'with a reason' adds tone but no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema already gives, so baseline 3 applies — and it slightly overstates by implying reason is required when only rule_id is.

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 — moving a rider rule to history — which is clearly distinct from line_rider_put (modify) and line_rider_list (read). It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 purpose implies the when (a rule should be removed from active use), and the second sentence warns about a no-op case. But there is no explicit guidance on when to retire versus using line_rider_put to alter a rule, nor any stated prerequisites.

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