search_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the token-matching behavior and ranking by hits, which adds value beyond the tool name and schema. However, it does not clarify case sensitivity, which parts of a rule are searched (e.g., title vs. body), result size limits, or pagination, so the behavioral picture is only partially complete.

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 compact sentences, no filler. The core function and algorithm are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a useful context/disclaimer. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter search tool with an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient: it explains what the tool does, how matching works, and how results are ranked. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools, which is minor given the clarity of the stated purpose.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'query's words' clarifies that the single string parameter is tokenized into words for matching, and it explains how those words are used ('simple token match, ranked by hits'). This adds real meaning beyond the bare property name 'query'.

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: 'Find rules whose text contains the query's words'. It also adds clarifying detail about the matching algorithm ('simple token match') and ordering ('ranked by hits'), making the tool's function immediately clear and distinguishable from sibling tools like list_rules, which would list rules, and get_rule, which retrieves a single rule.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the description indicates this tool is for finding rules by text content, which suggests it is the right choice when searching by keywords rather than enumerating or fetching specific rules. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives as preferable in certain situations, leaving some inference to the agent.

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