Get decision parameters

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real context beyond that: results are derived from the account's own rule copy (so custom domains are included) and parameters are ordered most-decisive-first by max_salience, which explains why ordering is meaningful. No auth, freshness, or pagination disclosure, so not a 5.

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, followed by useful output-shape and ordering detail; the sentence structure is scannable. The enumeration of return fields is slightly listy but each item carries semantic weight (units/scales warning, salience ordering).

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it usefully clarifies ordering and scope. For a one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the only material omission is the `domain` argument's expected format.

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 0% for the single `domain` parameter, so the description must carry the semantics. It conveys that domain scopes to a rule set and that custom domains work, but never states the expected identifier form (key, name, or ID), leaving a real gap.

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 ('List the input parameters a domain's rules decide on') and immediately positions it relative to the sibling `decide`. An agent can distinguish it from `list_rules`, `get_rule_source`, and `decide` without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as the prerequisite step — 'the facts to collect before calling `decide`' — which routes the agent through a concrete workflow. It names no when-not condition or alternate path (e.g. when to use `list_rules` instead), so it falls short of a 5.

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