list-scorecard-rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination behavior (though parameters hint at it), rate limits, ordering, or whether all rules are returned. The description is too brief.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the purpose. It is not verbose, but could benefit from more structure or additional information without sacrificing brevity.

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 no output schema and four parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what is returned, how results are paginated, or any constraints. The sibling tool 'list-scorecard-outcomes' suggests a related resource but guidance 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%; all four parameters have clear descriptions in the schema (page_size, page_offset, filter_rule_id, filter_rule_name). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond these, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'List service scorecard rules for evaluating service quality', specifying the verb (list) and resource (scorecard rules). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list-scorecard-outcomes' implicitly by focusing on rules, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-scorecard-outcomes' or other list tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, filters, or context for usage, leaving the agent with implied usage only.

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