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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and side-effect profile need no restating. The description's added value is the return contract — raw epoch seconds plus a days/hours/minutes/seconds breakdown — which is meaningful because no output schema exists. It doesn't mention behavior when the world is paused or not yet initialized, keeping it below 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary fact (current world time in seconds since epoch) and then the convenience breakdown. No filler, nothing repeated from annotations.

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?

For a zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description does the essential job by explaining exactly what comes back in both raw and decomposed form. Minor gaps remain around edge-case behavior (paused world, uninitialized game.time), but the agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the description correctly implies no input is required. With no parameters to disambiguate, the baseline of 4 applies; nothing further is needed or expected.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (get current in-world time) and grounds it in the underlying data path (game.time.worldTime, seconds since world epoch). It also states the exact output shape, which makes it trivially distinguishable from the mutating siblings world-time-set and world-time-advance.

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 clear from context: this is the read-only companion to world-time-advance and world-time-set, so an agent can infer when to read versus mutate. However, it never explicitly names those alternatives or states a 'use this when you only need the current value' rule, so it stops 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.