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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by explaining the two rule modes and their effect on publish. It does not describe the shape or pagination of the returned rule list, but for a read-only endpoint the added semantic context is solid.

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?

Three tight sentences with the read-only marker and the resource identity front-loaded, then the consequential publish behavior. The trailing '(Wraps GET /api/v2/attribution-rules.)' is mild overhead but useful for traceability.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does name the two things returned (rules and mode). Nothing critical for invoking a zero-required-parameter read tool is missing, though a hint about the volume or structure of the rule list would round it out.

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% and the brandId description already explains 'personal', brand ids, and the omitted-default behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the single parameter, matching the baseline 3 for a fully documented 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 the resource precisely — the brand's creator-credit rules plus their mode (flag / push_down) — and the title supplies the verb 'List'. It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_share_rules or list_text_templates, though it never names an adjacent tool to sharpen the boundary.

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 explains the practical consequence of push_down mode (publish refuses or holds a post missing a credit) and points to update_content for remediation, which implies why an agent would consult this before publishing. However, it never states when to call this tool versus alternatives, and the guidance is about downstream tools rather than tool selection.

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