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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context about what is returned (match, probability, config, minutes remaining) and that rules are active, but it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or what happens when include_expired is true. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Purpose and output fields are communicated efficiently.

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 simple read-only list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the returned fields, which is important without an output schema, but it does not mention the include_expired override or pagination, leaving a small gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description implies the default active-only behavior, but it does not explicitly explain include_expired or add syntax beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb 'List' and resource 'workspace's active fault rules', and names the returned fields. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like set_fault_rule and clear_fault_rules without opening the schema.

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 implied by the verb 'List' and the scope 'active fault rules', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about when not to use it, and no routing to alternatives. The schema handles the workspace parameter, but the description leaves context selection to inference.

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