list_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a helpful content limitation ('General information about the rules, not a licensed financial service') and the verb 'List' implies a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state read-only status, auth expectations, or behavior for an invalid/missing category, but for a simple listing tool with an output schema this is a reasonable baseline.

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 description is compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, the second gives the category vocabulary in a scannable list, and the third adds a relevant caveat. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant prose.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers how to invoke it, which categories are valid, and the general nature of the returned information. It is functionally complete for calling the tool correctly, though it could be stronger with a brief pointer to sibling search tools for broader lookups.

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?

The schema only provides the category field as an optional string/null with a default of null, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by stating that category is an optional filter and enumerating the valid category values: caps, contributions, deadlines, division-296, franking, glossary, pension. This adds real meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't explain what each category represents.

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 clearly states the action and resource: 'List the rules in the corpus, optionally filtered by category.' It also lists concrete category values, which adds specificity. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_rules or get_rule beyond the different verb, so it stops short of a 5.

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 makes the intended use clear: an agent should call this to list rules, optionally narrowing by a listed category. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer search_rules or get_rule instead, nor any exclusion criteria. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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