Get scheme profile rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral detail by listing the specific rule attributes returned (e.g., UETR mandatory, charge bearers), which is valuable for an AI agent even though no output schema exists.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a detailed usage paragraph, and a parameter section. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no nested objects), the description is complete. It explains the return content (rule attributes), references a sibling (list_schemes) for getting scheme names, and provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description in the tool adds a cross-reference to list_schemes and restates the parameter's purpose, providing slight extra value but not substantially beyond the schema.

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 it returns 'the rule attributes of a scheme / usage-guideline profile' and lists specific constraints (UETR mandatory, charge bearers, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like list_schemes (which returns names) and validate_scheme (which validates) by specifying it inspects the rail's constraints before assembling or validating.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use this to inspect a rail's constraints... before assembling or validating a batch.' It also provides an alternative by referencing 'list_schemes' for getting registered scheme names.

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