aethis_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds useful context by enumerating the shape of the returned data (names, types, descriptions, allowed values). It stops short of describing error behavior or what happens for unpublished rulesets.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return shape, then the workflow instruction. No filler or redundancy.

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 correctly compensates by summarizing the returned fields, which is the key information an agent needs to chain into aethis_decide. Only minor omissions remain (e.g., behavior for missing or unpublished ruleset_id).

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 single ruleset_id parameter is documented in the schema itself ('The ID of the published rule ruleset'). The description adds no syntax, sourcing, or format guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it fetches the input fields required for an eligibility check, and explicitly states what it returns (field names, types, descriptions, allowed values). It is clearly tied to aethis_decide, though it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling aethis_rulebook_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?

Provides explicit sequencing guidance: 'Use this before calling aethis_decide,' which tells the agent exactly when in the workflow to invoke it. It does not, however, state any exclusions or conditions under which this tool should be skipped.

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