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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and an output schema exists, so the safety and return profile is covered elsewhere. The description only adds that explanations include background/impact and that categories connect related concepts — useful but modest added context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then structured under a bolded Workflow. Slightly dense with bolded emphasis and multiple sibling references, but every clause carries routing or scope information.

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?

With a rich annotation set, a fully documented single parameter, and an output schema, the description need not explain returns. It supplies the missing piece — when to invoke it and which siblings to pair it with — though it could clarify how it differs from get_rule.

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?

One required parameter (slug) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema does the work. The description adds no format or sourcing detail for the slug beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieves the educational explanation for a frontend rule, and adds scope (why the rule matters, background, impact). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the close sibling get_rule, so an agent must infer the difference between the 'rule' and its 'explanation'.

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?

Explicit triggers ('when the user asks "why"', 'when explaining code review feedback') and a named workflow: use after fix_rule for educational context, pair with check_rule to validate understanding, search_rules to find related practices. The when-to-use and alternatives are both named.

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