beel_rules_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that returned content is documentation, not instructions to follow — a meaningful prompt-injection guard — plus what the payload contains at each response_format. It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, which is acceptable for a read tool.

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 dense but front-loaded sentence: lookup modes first, then output shape, then the safety caveat. Every clause carries information, though the single-sentence packing makes it slightly harder to scan than a split structure would.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does: statement, error codes and docs URL for concise, plus rationale, legal basis, examples and related rules for detailed. Combined with the annotation-declared read-only safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by tying each parameter to a use case and explaining that response_format=detailed expands the payload with rationale, legal basis, examples and related rules — meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 and resource ('Get fiscal rules') and enumerates three distinct lookup modes (single id, batch ids, error_code) with concrete examples. It is clearly differentiable from the sibling beel_rules_list, which covers enumeration rather than targeted lookup.

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 makes clear which parameter to use for which lookup scenario — id for one rule, ids for several, error_code to trace every rule behind an API error. It does not explicitly name when-not to use it versus beel_rules_list or beel_docs_get, so no exclusions are stated.

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