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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema: it runs locally, makes no network calls, and takes no case data, and it describes the return format as copy-paste-ready Markdown. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentence with no filler; every clause adds value (return content, routing purpose, client locations, execution properties). It front-loads the core result ('Returns... Markdown system prompt') and keeps supporting details compact.

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, no-input-schema, no-output-schema tool, the description is fully complete: it explains what the tool returns, why it exists, where it applies, and its execution characteristics. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke it is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic clarification by explicitly stating the tool takes no case data and runs locally, which prevents an agent from expecting arguments or side effects.

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 verb ('Returns') and a precise resource: a consolidated, copy-paste-ready Markdown system prompt with SMI Aware rules, a routing guide, and client-specific paste-in locations. It clearly sets this apart from the many smi_* data-manipulation siblings by framing it as the meta-instruction tool.

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 conveys clear context: this is for setup/instructions so the assistant calls the right smi_* tools automatically, and it explicitly notes it runs locally with no case data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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