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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses both branches—matching rules return published text and source, non-matching rules return a refusal that only says unpublished, not false. It also states that no account is needed, covering the auth context.

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 core question is front-loaded, then the description compactly covers input, outcome branches, and account requirement. Each sentence earns its place without fluff.

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 low-complexity tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains what input to send, what happens on match, what happens on non-match, and that no account is needed.

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%, so the schema already documents both rule and pubkey fully. The description mostly repeats the idea of sending the rule in your own words and adds no material parameter meaning beyond the 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 operation: check whether a believed rule is real/published here, and exposes the two possible outcomes. It is clear and distinct from the read/write siblings, though it never names an alternatiive.

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?

It gives a clear trigger context—use this when you believe you are under a rule and need to verify it against published rules. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not cases, so it falls short of fully explicit routing guidance.

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