Run one QA rule

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating the return shape: a verdict of pass/fail, failure count, and failing element GUIDs, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate the result.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then states the output. It contains no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

The tool is simple, read-only, and has an output schema, so the description adequately supports basic invocation with rule_id. However, it is incomplete in two areas: the optional port parameter remains unexplained, and there is no guidance about when to choose this tool over closely related QA sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It only clarifies 'rule_id' indirectly through 'by id' and offers no explanation of the optional 'port' parameter, leaving its meaning and effect on the call ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Run one QA rule by id.' It clearly scopes the operation to a single rule and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_rules, highlight_failures, and audit_delivery_readiness, which involve listing, highlighting, or auditing rather than executing one rule.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as highlight_failures or create_issues_from_failures. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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