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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavior beyond that — no note on whether the id lookup is cached, what happens on a missing/stale rule, or error semantics for a malformed id. It does clarify the alias relationship, which is real 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?

Two sentences with the alias/legacy note front-loaded, followed by the payload inventory. The long middle clause listing returned fields is dense but earns its place by telling the caller what they get back in one lookup. Slight crowding, no redundancy.

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 two-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description plus annotations plus schema cover what it does, how to get an id, and the alias relationship. Missing only failure/staleness behavior, which matters somewhat for a 'freshness'-bearing record but is minor given the rich output schema.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline by explaining the id's structure ('rul_<place uid>_<kind>') and, crucially, where to obtain ids ('appear in every place result as rule_records'). That provenance is not in the schema and directly enables correct invocation.

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 ('one rule ... by its stable id') and enumerates the payload (value, source, quote, confidence, verification date, freshness, citation line). It also names the canonical sibling it aliases, so an agent can place it immediately in the tool family.

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?

'Alias of dogpolicies_get_rule, kept for older clients' explains why this tool exists and effectively routes new callers to the canonical tool. It stops short of an explicit 'prefer dogpolicies_get_rule unless you need legacy compatibility' instruction, so the preference is implied rather than stated.

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