x_api_get_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses read-only risk, required bearer token, auth resolution behavior, common failure conditions, and a safety warning about sensitive account data. This goes well beyond minimal disclosure and does not contradict any structured data.

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 long but well-structured with labeled sections for risk, permissions, environment behavior, parameter formats, response shape, failures, and recommended tools. The 'Use when: Get stream rules' line repeats the opening and adds no value, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It includes expected response shape, common failure conditions, auth prerequisites, safety warnings, and an example invocation. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists ids, max_results, and pagination_token with basic formats, and adds meaningful context for scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey via environment-selection behavior. However, authorizationKey and preferredAuthType are not explained at all, leaving gaps for a 9-parameter tool.

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 'Get stream rules,' which names a specific verb and resource and distinguishes it from closely related siblings like x_api_get_rule_counts. However, it does not elaborate on the scope or nature of the rules beyond the tool name, and the 'Use when: Get stream rules' line is purely tautological.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use when: Get stream rules' and a clear exclusion clause: 'Do not use when: a more specific auth/configuration tool is required... prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion first.' It also names recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools, satisfying the when/when-not/alternatives criterion.

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