list_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds context about what the response includes (trigger/action definitions, active status, priority order) but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as pagination, error handling, or permissions, which is moderate given the low bar set by annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence that conveys scope, output content, and ordering without any redundant words or unnecessary detail. It is exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 simple read-only listing tool with one documented parameter, a readOnlyHint, and an output schema, the description covers the purpose and expected content adequately. It could mention sorting behavior or edge cases but is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter portfolio_id, described as 'Portfolio UUID'. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric.

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 explicitly names the verb 'List' and the resource 'systematic trading rules', scopes them to a portfolio, and lists the return content (trigger/action definitions, active status, priority order). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling portfolio-related and rule-management tools, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to retrieve all trading rules for a specified portfolio. It provides no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling tools, and there is no misleading guidance.

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