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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: it states nothing is saved (reinforcing readOnlyHint) and describes the specific behavior of checking matches and amount equality. It also mentions it runs over stored alerts and optionally extra samples, which is not in annotations.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then clarifies the behavior and side-effect-free nature.

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 nested rule object and the presence of an output schema, the description gives enough context to understand the tool's high-level purpose and outcome. It doesn't explicitly mention the required rule parameter, but that is in the schema, and annotations cover safety. It's 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?

The description mentions 'extra samples' which relates to the samples parameter, but it does not explain the rule object or its fields. The schema has descriptions for rule properties and samples, so with ~50% coverage, the description adds marginal value but doesn't compensate for any gaps.

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 ('Dry-run') and resource ('parse rule') and clearly explains what it does: tests the rule against stored alerts and optional samples, reporting matches and whether the parsed amount equals the logged amount. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_parse_rule (which saves) and parse_transaction_text (which likely actually parses).

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 this is a test without side effects ('Nothing is saved'), which gives context, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this versus saving a rule. It could benefit from a note like 'Use this before save_parse_rule to validate.'

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