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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with both. It adds value beyond annotations by disclosing determinism ('the same step always returns the same rule set'), the reference-only nature ('No garden scene is read or required'), and the output structure (up to 20 rules with predicate, thresholds, strength, confidence, sources). No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the reference-not-check clarification and the determinism guarantee. Slightly more detail than strictly needed given the schema and annotations, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

Complete for a single-parameter reference tool. The output schema covers the return format, annotations cover the read-only safety profile, and the description adds the determinism guarantee and the no-scene-required clarification. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 the enum fully specifies the step values with descriptions, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The tool description merely restates the step values and adds the 'one step at a time' constraint, which the schema description already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema covers all parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('design-knowledge-base rules') scoped to a single design step, and enumerates the five valid steps (brief/koncept/dispozicia/vysadba/materialy). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools, which deal with BOM, catalog bricks, pricing, and templates — entirely different domains.

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 clarifies this is reference knowledge, not a check against a specific garden scene, and the schema description adds explicit per-step guidance: 'Call this once per step you are working on — do not assume one step's rules cover another.' It gives clear usage context but does not explicitly name exclusions against alternatives; differentiation from siblings is implied via domain rather than stated.

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