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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable payload context the annotations cannot: the ordering of results, the one-line meaning per code, and that tips for vague invitations are included. It stops there, but for a parameterless read tool that is meaningful added value.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and its ordering, then closes with usage guidance. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so (ordered ladder, one-line meanings, vague-invitation tips). Nothing an agent needs to call it is missing; only the precise entry count/format is left unstated.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's mentions of ordering and per-entry content are about output rather than inputs, which is fine given the empty schema.

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 resource and ordering ('dress-code ladder from least to most formal, casual → white tie') plus what each entry contains. It implicitly distinguishes itself from explain_dress_code ('orient before explaining one'), though it never names the sibling explicitly, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use conditions: 'Use to compare codes or orient before explaining one.' This routes the agent toward this tool for scanning/comparison and away from the single-code explainer. No explicit when-not statement or named alternative, so not a 5.

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