Explain a rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the categories of information the caller will receive (what a rule detects, default severity, message template, fix applicability), which helps an agent decide whether this call answers its question.

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?

One tightly written sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the return payload enumerated after the colon. No filler or repetition.

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 explainer with an output schema present, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly and does not need to describe return values. Minor gap: no guidance on what happens for an unknown or malformed rule_id.

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 0% for the single rule_id parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does by giving concrete example identifiers (REF003, CIT001) that convey the expected format. It stops short of stating whether unknown IDs are rejected or aliased, hence not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('paper-preflight rule'), gives example IDs, and enumerates the content returned (detection, severity, message template, fix safety). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like preflight_check and preflight_bib_fix.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only nature and the name, but the description never states when to call this instead of siblings (e.g., before running preflight_check, or to interpret a rule ID emitted by a check). No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are named.

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