Check if the AIR rules have moved on

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the auth scope (projects:read), a caution against independently determining rule versions, and semantics for the returned fields. No output schema exists, so this return-value disclosure is meaningful added context.

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?

Four sentences, no obvious filler, but the description opens with output-field definitions ('due is true when...') rather than front-loading what the tool does. Jargon like 'said later' and 'the stored tier' adds terse informality at the cost of immediate comprehension.

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?

With no output schema, the description does cover the key returned fields (due, lastCompleted.tier, tierUnderCurrentRules, postponed), which is the right thing to spend words on. However, it leaves the required input parameter unexplained and gives no indication of what to do when 'due' is true, leaving the workflow half-specified.

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% and the sole parameter projectPid is never mentioned in the description. An agent must infer that projectPid identifies the project whose notice is being checked; the description contributes nothing to the single required parameter.

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 explains what the 'due' flag and related fields mean but never states plainly that the tool returns a rules-version notice for a given project. The title ('Check if the AIR rules have moved on') carries most of the purpose load, and related siblings like air_postpone_rules_notice and air_recheck_tier are never named or contrasted.

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 only usage instruction is the constraint 'Do not decide the version yourself', which is a directive, not routing. There is no statement of when to call this versus air_postpone_rules_notice or air_recheck_tier, nor any precondition beyond the bare 'Requires projects:read' note.

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