RLS check: explain the result

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: findings are ordered worst first, grouped by risk class, written in Arabic with English labels, and linked to Arabic lessons.

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 dense but front-loaded, first stating what is explained and then adding ordering, language, linking, and offline behavior. Every clause carries relevant information, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 one-parameter, read-only explanation tool with no output schema, the description gives enough detail about what the findings contain, how they are ordered, what languages are used, and that it works offline. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, and the single result parameter is already documented as the JSON result cell from rls_check_query. The description reinforces that it operates on a pasted result, but adds no new syntax or format details beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb/resource: it explains the output of rls_check_query table by table. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling query tool by emphasizing explanation of a pasted result, not execution of a check.

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?

It clearly indicates the tool is used on the result from rls_check_query and that it works offline on the pasted result. It does not explicitly state exclusions or when not to use it, but the context is strong and unambiguous.

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