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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it implies a read-only lookup returning a 'complete' rule, but says nothing about behavior on an unknown rule_id, whether lookup is case-sensitive, or whether permissions apply. Since an output schema exists, the return shape is covered elsewhere, keeping this at a middling score.

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?

Two short lines: the purpose is stated first, then only the example IDs, which earn their place by teaching the ID format. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema, the essentials are present, but nothing explains how to discover valid rule_ids or what happens when one is not found, and the relationship to the search/list siblings is unaddressed.

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 0%, so the schema gives no meaning for rule_id, but the description compensates with four concrete example IDs (CC-FN-01, SOLID-DIP-01, SMELL-14, WATR-MH-02) that reveal the prefix-based ID format. It does not state whether IDs are exact-match or prefix-tolerant, leaving one gap.

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?

States a specific verb (devuelve/returns) and resource (una regla, smell o meta-heurística) plus the lookup key (rule_id), so an agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as search_practices, which is the main ambiguity an agent could still face.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus search_practices or review_code, and no mention of how an agent should obtain a valid rule_id (e.g., via search or list_domains). Usage is only inferable from the purpose statement itself.

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