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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: the output is Markdown, one section per rule, gate rules are marked, and content is language-agnostic. It could say more about whether the template reflects rule changes over time, but the returned shape is well disclosed.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by usage and format. Dense and waste-free, though the telegraphic last sentence ('gate rules marked; write in any language') is slightly elliptical.

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 the return value, and it does so reasonably — Markdown, one section per rule, gate markers. Enough for an agent to call it correctly and know what to expect; missing only finer detail on whether sections include the inputs inline as placeholders.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed — the template is derived entirely from live rules.

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 states a concrete resource — a brief template generated from the live rules — and describes its shape (Markdown, one section per rule). It doesn't explicitly name or differentiate itself from siblings like get_rules or check_brief, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the purpose is clear.

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?

Two concrete use cases are given: starting a brief from nothing, and mapping a gap to the right section. That is meaningful when-to-use guidance, though it stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. get_rules for raw rules, check_brief for validation).

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