ListDataQualityRules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states it's a query/list operation, which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no rules match. For a list tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise - a single 4-character phrase. While it's under-specified in terms of content, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every character serves the purpose of stating the basic operation, making it maximally efficient in terms of word count.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (quality rule objects with what fields?), doesn't mention the pagination behavior that's implied by PageNumber/PageSize parameters, and doesn't provide context about the data quality system. For a list tool in a complex data management system, this minimal description leaves too many gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly with Chinese descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '查询质量规则列表' (Query quality rule list) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ListDataQualityRules' in Chinese. It provides a basic verb+resource but lacks specificity about what kind of quality rules or what system they belong to. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like ListDataQualityRuleTemplates or ListDataQualityEvaluationTasks.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to data quality (ListDataQualityRuleTemplates, ListDataQualityEvaluationTasks, ListDataQualityResults), but the description doesn't help differentiate them. No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when this specific listing is appropriate is provided.

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