Get BULC rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations ('Works without the app'), but says nothing about result ranking, pagination beyond the schema's limit, or how the confidence tiers affect output.

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?

Purpose and filters are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage hint follows immediately. The trailing Korean sentence duplicates the first clause, which is a small redundancy, but the whole thing stays short and skimmable.

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 read-only, no-required-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient: it covers filters, timing, and offline availability. With no output schema, it could have described the summary vs full return shapes, which is the only material gap.

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 89% (baseline 3), but the description adds real value: it maps the ambiguous 'applies_to' parameter to 'class', names 'confidence' as a valid filter (that property has only an enum and no schema description), and pairs two filters in a worked example. That goes beyond restating 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List modelling rules') plus the filtering dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not name sibling tools (e.g. bulc_knowledge_search, get_conventions, bulc_check_deck) to sharpen the boundary, 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?

Gives explicit timing ('Use before a phase of work') with a concrete example filter combination (domain=sprinkler, min_severity=warning) and a downstream behavior ('quote rule ids when explaining'). No when-not-to-use or explicit alternative is offered, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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