get_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the operation is a read-style 'Return' and discloses the output components plus the informational nature of the rules. It does not cover not-found or error behavior, but for a simple get-by-id tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 sentences, no filler. The core purpose and return contents are front-loaded, and the disclaimer is kept separate and brief.

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 it has only one required parameter and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for calling the tool. The main gap is not pointing to list_rules or search_rules as the source of a rule id, but that is not essential for a basic get operation.

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% and the description never explains the 'id' parameter or where it comes from. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return one rule in full'. It enumerates concrete content areas (summary, figures in cents, mechanics, sources and provenance), which clearly distinguishes it from list/search siblings that would not return the full rule detail.

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 use when you need complete detail about a single rule, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of list_rules or search_rules. The 'not a licensed financial service' sentence is a disclaimer, not usage guidance.

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