DLP deployed rules report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns 'all' rules, includes per-rule custom group counts, and supports filtering/pagination. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary function, then adds the custom group count detail and the two key capabilities (filter, pagination). Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned, the distinguishing aggregate (custom group count), and the available controls (filter and pagination). It does not enumerate return fields or edge cases, but none are required given the simplicity and good annotations.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters well. The description's mention of 'filtering by rule class' and 'pagination' only restates what the schema provides, adding no extra meaning beyond the structured definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('all DLP data rules deployed in the network'), and adds the distinguishing detail of showing the number of custom groups per rule. This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools such as dlp_network_device_report or dlp_network_email_report.

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 clarifies scope (deployed network rules) and mentions filtering by rule class and pagination, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, so guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other DLP/report siblings remains implicit.

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