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

Annotations only declare safety flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) with no domain semantics, and the description adds real context: retired rules are omitted and helper flags like auto_approved indicate whether a human reviewed a rule. It does not contradict the annotations, though the odd readOnlyHint=false for a 'List' tool is left unaddressed.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the follow-up paragraph is dense but each clause carries domain meaning (state values, origin values, auto_approved). The enumeration is long but not padded, since none of these value domains exist in the schema.

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 read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, exclusions, and sibling routing well. It spends much of its text explaining returned fields, which the output schema likely already covers, but that redundancy is what supplies the missing value-domain semantics.

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% for the single required project_id, so the description must carry the load, but it says only 'this project's', which merely restates the parameter name. It offers no format, source, or expectation about which project identifier is accepted.

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 and resource ('List this project's ... steering rules') and scopes the result to active/pending while noting retired rules are excluded. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like approve_steering_rule and retire_steering_rule. Minor ambiguity: it defines an 'expired' state while claiming only active and pending rules are listed, leaving unclear whether expired rules appear.

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 rather than stated: it explains what steering rules are and that approve_steering_rule/retire_steering_rule should be used with a rule's id, which sketches the view-then-act workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no prerequisites (e.g. required permissions or project membership).

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