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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world read, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are paginated and are short summaries rather than full rule bodies, which tells the agent to follow up with get_rule for detail. It stops short of describing empty-result or cursor-expiry behavior.

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 sentences, zero filler. The capability and return shape come first, then the usage trigger, which is the right front-loading for an agent scanning for the right tool.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be detailed, and the description still gives a useful summary of them. All five parameters are covered between schema and description. The only omission is routing guidance against the many similar-looking siblings, which is a minor gap for a 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit, query, cursor, categories and priorities are all already documented in the schema, including the note that query may be omitted to filter only. The description names the same three filter axes but adds no format or combination semantics beyond the schema; 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 (finds/searches) and resource (frontend rules) plus the filter dimensions (keywords, category, priority) and the shape of what comes back (paginated slugs, titles, short summaries). The mention of lightweight summary results implicitly distinguishes it from get_rule/explain_rule, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls 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?

"Use it when the user requests relevant practices for a technology, concern, or pattern, such as web fonts or accessible forms" gives a clear triggering condition with concrete examples. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it or name an alternative such as get_checklist_rules or get_quick_reference, which a crowded sibling set would benefit from.

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