List rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: it discloses that each rule carries conditions and actions, and that payeeId narrows to rules the system 'associates' with a payee (an implicit association the agent could not infer from the schema).

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the optional-filter guidance. Every clause carries information.

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?

A single optional-param, read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and an annotation-covered safety profile. The description covers purpose, filter semantics, and the rough return content (conditions plus actions), which is sufficient with no output schema present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining what the payeeId filter is actually for (debugging why a merchant's transactions consistently get a category), adding intent the terse schema description does not.

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+resource ('List the budget's rules') and even describes the shape of what is returned ('with their conditions and actions'). It is clearly distinct from create_rule/update_rule/apply_rule_actions, though it does not explicitly name the lookalike siblings (describe_rule_schema, preview_rule_effects).

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?

Gives clear usage context for the optional parameter: pass payeeId to see why transactions for one merchant keep getting a category. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over preview_rule_effects or describe_rule_schema, so no explicit exclusion guidance.

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