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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds real value by disclosing the sort order (priority ASC) and the returned summary fields (conditionSummary, actionSummary), which matters because there is no output schema — but it omits pagination behavior and whether disabled rules are included.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the resource, scope, ordering and return shape all stated up front. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering and return shape, which is most of what an agent needs. Remaining gaps — pagination/limits and whether the list includes inactive rules — are minor but real for a list operation.

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%, with both groupId and versionId documented as "Policy group ID" and "Version ID", so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the parameters — not even that both are required to pin the version being listed.

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?

"List all rules in a version" gives a specific verb (list) and resource (rules) plus its scope (a version), which cleanly separates it from lexq_rules_get and lexq_rules_create. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 never says when to choose this over lexq_rules_get or lexq_profile_rule, and gives no prerequisites such as needing a published version or group access. Usage is only implied by the verb "List".

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