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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds concrete non-effects: no scheduling link, no task, no email, nothing executed. That directly addresses the main risk an agent would worry about when previewing automations, though auth and rate-limit context are absent.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the safety guarantee. Every clause earns its place; there is no repetition or filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, return content (active rules plus resolved action params), and inertness, which is useful without an output schema. But with five parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no explicit usage routing, it is not fully complete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only vaguely maps to application_id and stage/trigger via 'sample application entering/leaving a stage' and says nothing about request_id, idempotency_key, or the trigger enum values, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 and resource: dry-run preview that resolves the active rules and their resolved action params for a sample application entering/leaving a stage. This scope clearly distinguishes it from siblings like automation_rules_list and automation_rules_preview_rule without requiring either schema.

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 'Dry-run preview' implies this is the safe way to see what automations would fire before a real stage change, which is useful implied usage. However, it names no explicit alternative (e.g., transition_preview, preview_rule, transition_direct) and gives no when-to-use or prerequisite guidance.

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