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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavioral context: the result set is gated by publication status and rights-safety, and drafts and unresolved contradictions are filtered out.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the inclusion criterion is front-loaded before the exclusion. Efficient, though it omits the actual search verb the tool performs.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be explained, but five undocumented parameters, no usage routing against the many sibling search/analysis tools, and a wholly implicit retrieval verb leave meaningful gaps for a faceted search tool.

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?

Five parameters (query, topic, harmClass, tradition, limit) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. With no schema-level documentation to fall back on, the burden was entirely on the description and it provides no parameter meaning whatsoever.

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 resource type (publication-gated rules and rights-safe source metadata) and the retrieval semantics are implied by the name 'search_reviewed_rules'. It distinguishes this from raw-passage or draft retrieval by stating what is included. The verb itself is never stated outright, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 inclusion/exclusion statement ('only publication-gated rules... drafts and open contradictions are excluded') implies this is for vetted, publishable material, which is real usage context. However, no alternative sibling (e.g. search_source_passages) is named and no explicit when-not-to-use condition is given.

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