Ruling

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a composite read operation (search the vault, select the 'best note', return its ruling and note id), but 'best note' is an undisclosed selection heuristic, and there is no mention of permissions, failure behavior when nothing matches, or rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with no filler. The only minor redundancy is restating 'short ruling' twice and the parenthetical Persian glosses, which are useful but lengthen the middle 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description's mention of the note id is a bonus. However, for a tool sitting among nine similar retrieval/rule siblings with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented parameter, the absence of disambiguation and edge-case behavior leaves meaningful gaps.

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 0% for the single 'query' parameter, so the description must compensate. 'For a question/doubt' does convey that the input is a natural-language editorial question rather than a keyword, which adds some meaning, but no format, length, or example guidance is given.

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 and resource ('Get the vault's short editorial ruling for a question/doubt') and even sketches the internal mechanism (search the vault, take the best note, return the ruling plus note id). It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not distinguish itself from adjacent rule-oriented siblings such as deep_rules, smart_rules, or rule_pack.

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 one concrete usage context: 'Use this as the virtual editor's verdict before finalizing Persian text.' That is a real when-to-use cue, but there are no exclusions and no named alternatives among the ten siblings (search, deep_rules, smart_rules, rule_pack), so the agent must infer the boundaries itself.

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