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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a summary with conditionSummary and actionSummary, and orders by priority ASC. It does not disclose pagination, limits, or whether the summary includes rule IDs/names, but for a read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, ordering, and return summary in under 20 words. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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-only list tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what it returns (summary with conditionSummary and actionSummary) and the ordering. The only minor gap is not mentioning whether the summary includes rule identifiers or how many rules are returned, but that is not essential for invoking the tool correctly.

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%: both groupId and versionId have descriptions ('Policy group ID', 'Version ID'). The description adds that the tool lists rules in a version, which clarifies the role of versionId, but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves. 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all rules in a version'), and adds ordering ('priority ASC') and return summary fields. It is clear and distinct from siblings like lexq_rules_get (which likely fetches a single rule) and lexq_rules_create/update/delete. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it doesn't fully differentiate itself from other list tools.

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 usage: call this when you need all rules in a version, with required groupId and versionId. It does not state when to prefer this over lexq_rules_get, lexq_profile_rule, or lexq_rules_reorder, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not explicit about alternatives.

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