Get a rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the HTTP route, saying nothing about what happens with a missing or invalid id or what the returned rule contains.

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?

A single short sentence with the endpoint in parentheses; front-loaded and free of padding. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted.

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 operation with a clean input schema and permissive annotations, the minimum needed is present. Missing details are how to obtain a valid id and the shape of a rule, though the latter is partly inferable from rules_list and rules_create siblings.

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 plain "id" string parameter is undocumented anywhere. The path template "GET /v1/rules/{id}" weakly implies it is a rule identifier, but format, source (e.g., from rules_list), and validation are left unspecified.

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 and resource ("Get a rule") and adds the underlying endpoint, so the operation is identifiable. However, it offers no differentiation from nearby siblings like rules_list, rules_runs, or rules_getSchedule, which all deal with the same rule resource.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus rules_list (to discover an id) or the schedule/spend-monitor getters. The agent must infer from the name alone that this retrieves a single rule by id.

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