Query the web interface audit rubric

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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world query, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the ruleset is 'pinned' and totals 104 rules, which is useful context about result stability and corpus size, but says nothing about response shape, truncation, or how maxTokens interacts with limit.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the first sentence then devolves into a seventeen-item keyword list of categories. The second sentence largely duplicates the format and severity enum descriptions already present in the schema, so part of the text does not earn its space.

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 six optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the basics but leaves real gaps: whether 'query' is semantic or keyword matching, whether maxTokens truncates results, and above all how this differs from three overlapping sibling tools. Those omissions matter for a retrieval tool in a crowded namespace.

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 all six parameters including defaults are already documented in structured form. The description's 'format=markdown for a checklist' and 'severity=error for must-fix' restate what the schema descriptions already say, adding essentially no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: querying a pinned corpus of 104 Web Interface Guidelines rules, and enumerates the topic coverage. An agent knows exactly what content comes back, but the description never distinguishes this corpus-retrieval tool from sibling tools taste_search, taste_get, or taste_audit.

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?

Offers how-to-call guidance (format=markdown for a checklist, severity=error for must-fix) but never says when this tool is the right choice versus taste_search, taste_get, or taste_audit. Usage is inferable from the topic list rather than stated as an explicit routing rule.

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