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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value beyond the annotations by noting that results are compact and that the scan truncation is reported, which is useful behavioral context for an agent.

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 single-sentence description is compact and front-loaded: it names the verb, the resource, the safety guarantee, and a key output trait. Every clause earns its place, and no fluff is present.

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 large multi-variant input schema and the lack of output schema, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent. It conveys the preview intent but does not explain the operation variants, parameter roles, or the nature of the returned 'compact' report.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage and 10 parameters, but the description adds no meaning for any parameter beyond a general hint about saved rules versus an unsaved change. The agent is left without any prose guidance for operation, conditions, action, ruleRef, maxAffected, or orderedRuleRefs, which is a severe gap for such a complex schema.

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 (preview), resource (accounting rules), and side-effect boundary (without saving or applying). This clearly differentiates it from apply_accounting_rules and edit_accounting_rules, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 phrase 'without saving or applying anything' gives clear context about when to use this tool versus mutation tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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