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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some scoping context ('exact supported role IDs, activity IDs, and bounded route names'), but 'bounded' largely restates openWorldHint=false, and the description does not add meaningful behavioral detail beyond what the annotations and title already provide.

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 two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the exclusion guidance immediately following. Every sentence contributes actionable information, with no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter read-only catalog with an output schema and annotations covering its behavioral profile, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool provides, when to call it, and when to use a sibling tool instead.

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 has zero parameters, and the empty input schema is fully self-describing with 100% schema description coverage. There are no parameter semantics to elaborate on, so the baseline of 4 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 clearly identifies the tool as a rule catalog that returns exact supported role IDs, activity IDs, and bounded route names. It distinguishes itself from case-specific preflight tools by naming waste_rule_preflight explicitly, so an agent can tell when to use this catalog instead of a preflight.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it before a case-specific preflight when exact identifiers are needed. It also provides a clear when-not-to-use directive and names the alternative tool, waste_rule_preflight, for deciding a user's case after facts are collected.

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