rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered structurally. The description adds that output is a plain-language summary with legal references, which is useful content context, but it says nothing about format, length, or language of the references.

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?

A single, tightly scoped sentence that front-loads the deliverable ('plain-language summary') and qualifies it with scope and added value ('with legal references'). No 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?

An output schema exists and there is a single enum-constrained parameter, so return details need not be restated. What is missing is routing guidance against the overlapping siblings, but the core informational need is otherwise met.

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% and the single topic parameter enumerates all 13 allowed values, so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no syntax or selection meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and output form: it produces a 'plain-language summary of the customer's rights and duties on a topic, with legal references.' That is clear and concrete, though the tool name 'rules' is generic and the description does not differentiate it from overlapping siblings like objection_deadline or registration_deadlines.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, despite siblings that clearly overlap thematically (registration_deadlines, objection_deadline, unemployment_benefit_duration, calculate_deadline). The agent must infer that this is the general explainer for a topic while those are narrower deadline calculators.

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