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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return shape — execution order, enabled state, plain-English summary, and full JSON definition — which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, and the most important fact — that rules come back in execution order — is stated up front. Every clause conveys distinct information about the response.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing piece — the composition of the returned items — which compensates for having no output schema. Only the lack of sibling routing guidance keeps it from being fully 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Feed id from list_feeds'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only implies feed scoping through 'The feed's rule stack' and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource precisely ('the feed's rule stack') and enumerates what each entry contains — name, enabled state, summary, full JSON definition — so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like preview_rule or set_rule_enabled, but the read/list nature is unambiguous.

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 description makes clear this is for inspecting a feed's rules, which naturally routes an agent away from create_rule/delete_rule. However, it never states when to prefer this over preview_rule or get_feed, nor any prerequisites beyond the schema's 'Feed id from list_feeds' note.

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