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

readOnlyHint=true already discloses the non-mutating nature. The description adds what will be returned (condition tree and action definitions), which is mildly useful context but adds little behavioural disclosure beyond annotations. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but with the annotation present, this is acceptable and not a contradiction.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that directly states what the tool retrieves. There is zero redundant phrasing, and the focus on the distinctive return content earns its place.

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 simple read tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description supplies what the return payload contains ('condition tree and action definitions'), which is information an agent needs to handle the result. It does not mention expected failure modes or version-interaction nuances, but given the low complexity and annotations, this is reasonably complete.

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?

All three parameters have 100% schema description coverage with descriptive names ('ruleId', 'groupId', 'versionId') and descriptions like 'Rule ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, e.g., relationship between group/version/rule or format requirements, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema covers all parameters.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('full rule detail'), and names the concrete content ('condition tree and action definitions') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like lexq_rules_list (which lists only summaries) and lexq_rules_update (which mutates). An agent can infer this is the fetch-a-single-rule's-complete-definition operation without opening schemas.

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?

The description implies the intended use case via 'full rule detail', which suggests it is for retrieving complete rule structure rather than a summarised list entry. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over lexq_rules_list or lexq_profile_rule, nor does it give any exclusions or prerequisites beyond what the schema already states.

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