Read the rules behind a review

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that output is Markdown documentation, but discloses nothing further about behavior (no auth, rate limits, or caveats), so it only marginally exceeds the annotation baseline.

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-loads the core statement ('The rules behind a review, as Markdown') and sizes itself appropriately for a content-heavy lookup tool. The long nested parenthetical for item lists is dense but every clause carries information, so little is wasted.

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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is not required, and the single required enum param is fully documented. Annotations cover the safety profile; the description rounds out content scope and usage, leaving only sibling-routing guidance as a gap.

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% with a single enum parameter, giving a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond the terse schema by detailing what each enum value ('electrical', 'plumbing', 'layout', 'ergonomics') actually returns, adding genuine semantic value.

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 resource (the rules behind a review) and format (Markdown), and enumerates exactly what content each topic domain yields (NBR standards, layout problems, ergonomics weights), so the agent knows what it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling check tools (electrical, plumbing, layout, ergonomics), which caps it below 5.

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?

"For designing to a standard, or explaining a finding" gives clear when-to-use context across two scenarios. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., 'use `electrical` to run the check instead'), so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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