bunny_list_rate_limit_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds conceptual context ('Rate limit rules restrict the number of requests per second from matching clients') but does not disclose additional operational behavior such as pagination, ordering, or response structure. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate without being rich.

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 concise sentences. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence gives useful domain context. No wasted words or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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 tool is simple: one parameter, no output schema, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fully explains what the tool does and the required scope. Minor missing details like return format or relationship to bunny_manage_rate_limit_rule are not critical for a straightforward list operation, so only a small gap remains.

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 100% for the only parameter, shield_zone_id, with its own description 'Shield Zone ID'. The tool description reinforces that this belongs to 'a shield zone', but does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('rate limiting rules'), and scopes it to 'a shield zone'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bunny_manage_rate_limit_rule (which implies create/update/delete) and other list operations.

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 provides a clear context: use this to list rate limiting rules for a shield zone. It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like bunny_manage_rate_limit_rule, but the list vs. manage distinction is evident from the tool names and description. No misleading or conflicting usage guidance is present.

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