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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond them: matches return summary information only, and get_rule is required for full details and code examples. It stops short of describing pagination/cursor behavior, which is left to the schema.

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 action and an emphasized proactive-use cue, followed by a compact workflow. Every sentence earns its place, though the bolded PROACTIVELY and workflow block make it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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-value detail is unnecessary, and annotations plus the schema cover safety and parameters. The description completes the picture by placing the tool in a discovery workflow. Only pagination nuances are unaddressed, which the schema handles.

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 query, categories, priorities, limit and cursor are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of searching by technology/concern/pattern maps loosely onto query and categories but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('searches and filters frontend development rules') and enumerates the filter axes (technology, concern, patterns). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_rule ('full details') and list_categories ('see available areas').

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?

Explicitly says to use it PROACTIVELY when working on frontend code, and gives a concrete three-step workflow naming list_categories as the entry point and get_rule as the follow-up. When-to-use and alternatives are both spelled out.

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