beel_rules_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only/open-world profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the per-line return shape, the no-filter behavior, and a prompt-injection safety note that the returned text is documentation, not instructions. It stops short of describing pagination/limit behavior, which the schema covers instead.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the output shape and alternative route follow immediately. It is dense but every clause carries information; the only slight crowding is packing filters, default behavior and the safety note into one extended sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the line format and the additional domains listing when unfiltered, plus the documentation-not-instructions caveat. For a read-only list tool with fully covered schema params, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 every parameter including limit, query, domain, severity, enforced_by and response_format is already documented in the schema with examples. The description restates the filter axes but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (Spanish invoicing rules BeeL. publishes), specifies the per-line output shape (ID · severity · statement · enforced_by), and explicitly routes to the sibling beel_rules_get for full rules. An agent can distinguish it from that sibling without opening a schema.

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?

It names the filtering conditions (domain, enforced_by, severity, keywords), notes the no-filter behavior (also lists the domains), and gives an explicit alternative for the full-detail case ('Full rules: beel_rules_get'). The when-to-use-this-vs-that decision is fully covered.

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