get_rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds that the result is a full definition rather than a summary, but says nothing about behavior for an unknown rule_id or any error/lookup semantics.

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 front-loaded sentence listing the returned sections with zero filler. It is terse to the point of being fragmentary, but nothing 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 a rich output schema, full annotations, and one required parameter, the description only needs to signal what the tool fetches, which it does. The remaining gap is routing against list_rules rather than return-value detail.

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% and the single rule_id parameter already carries an example format (REC-HO-001). The description contributes no additional meaning about the identifier beyond what the schema states, so 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (one rule) plus the payload contents (description, citations, params, remediation), so the agent knows exactly what a call returns. It does not explicitly name the sibling list_rules, but 'one rule' versus a list is implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one rule' suggests you already have a rule_id, which in turn implies list_rules is how you discover one. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative is given.

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