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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does not state that this is a side-effect-free read, whether the template is static or tenant-specific, whether the returned spec is validated, or what the response looks like. The "starter ... to fill in" wording is useful signal about the payload's incompleteness, but it is the only behavioral hint present.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than maximizing information per word.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of truth about what comes back, and it says only that the spec is a starter to be filled in. For a zero-parameter tool that is arguably adequate, but it omits any hint about the spec's structure, required fields, or what to do with it next.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description contradicts or misrepresents 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?

"Return a starter declarative calculator spec to fill in" names a specific verb and a specific resource (a declarative calculator spec, as a starter skeleton). The agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like create_calculator or pull_skill_scaffold, which sit in adjacent territory.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite statement, and no named alternative. The phrase "to fill in" hints that this precedes create_calculator, but the agent must infer that workflow step and cannot tell why it would pick this over pull_skill_scaffold or fork_calculator.

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