Get the playbook for an issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: rule points are truncated to the issue, and the state code triggers resolution of state agencies. It does not say what happens when state is omitted/null, which is a meaningful behavioral ambiguity for an optional parameter.

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?

Three compact sentences: payload contents first, then the state parameter, then the get_rules boundary. Every sentence carries information and the scoping caveat is placed last where it belongs. Slightly dense as a comma-separated content list, but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description correctly focuses on what goes in and what scope comes out. What remains missing is input-format guidance for company/issue and the behavior when the optional state is not supplied — the two things an agent is most likely to get wrong.

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% across three parameters, so the description must carry the load, and it only does so for state ('two-letter state code to resolve state agencies'). Neither company nor issue gets any format guidance — no hint about whether company is a name or an ID, or whether issue must come from list_issues. Partial compensation for a 0%-coverage 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 enumerates exactly what the playbook contains (steps, channels, evidence, deadlines, verified facts, rules, escalation ladder) for a single company+issue, which is concrete and specific. It also distinguishes itself from get_rules by scoping rule content to 'this issue' versus 'full text'. It lacks an explicit verb (the action is only implied by the title), which keeps it just below 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?

There is one clear routing instruction: use get_rules when full rule text is needed, since this tool returns only issue-scoped rule points. The state parameter's purpose is also stated. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over get_context or get_escalation, both of which sound like overlapping sources of issue context.

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