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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe, non-mutating behavior is known. The description adds the concrete use case of recovering ruleRef for downstream operations, which is useful context. It doesn't mention pagination or clamping behavior (though limit parameter has description), but given annotations cover the primary behavioral traits, this is acceptable.

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 sentence that is concise and information-dense. It front-loads the primary action (find) and then lists the key purposes (filter, recover ruleRef). No fluff or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, 2 required), the description is sparse but not inadequate. It covers the main use case and output purpose (ruleRef). However, it doesn't explain requirement context (workspaceRef and portfolioRef are required but not mentioned), might benefit from indicating that this is the list counterpart to edit/delete. The presence of an output schema absent means the agent must infer return format, but the description's mention of ruleRef recovery partially addresses this.

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 only 15%, with only limit and pageToken having descriptions. The description itself does not explain any parameter semantics beyond the overall purpose. However, many parameters are self-explanatory (search, enabled, ruleRef, wallets, assetIds, actionTypes, etc.), and the description's mention of filtering covers the gist. It doesn't compensate for the lack of schema descriptions fully, but the parameter names are intuitive.

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 clear purpose: finding saved accounting rules, filtering them, and retrieving the ruleRef for subsequent operations. It distinguishes from siblings like apply_accounting_rules and preview_accounting_rules by mentioning the ruleRef recovery aspect, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list tools (e.g., list_ledger_accounts) beyond context.

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 for searching and getting ruleRef, but it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is the tool to use before edit/delete/preview, though the ruleRef mention hints at that. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given, but the context of 'saved accounting rules' clarifies scope.

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