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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden alone. It signals this is a read-only lookup and that guessing the syntax costs a turn, but it never says what the reference actually returns or how it is structured (there is no output schema either). Adequate for a low-risk documentation fetch, but thin.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the reference contains followed by the call-to-action. Both sentences earn their place, though the trailing rationale about wasting a turn is persuasion rather than specification.

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 doc-retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, contents, and when to read it. The only real gap is the absence of any signal about the shape or size of the returned reference, which an agent would need to plan context usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so both optional booleans (limits, indicators) are already fully documented in the schema, including the default behavior of 'indicators'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 for a high-coverage 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?

States a specific resource — the Brighter strategy DSL — and enumerates its coverage: blocks, indentation rules, indicators and limits. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like strategy_schema or format_strategy, which operate on a strategy rather than describing the language.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Read this before writing any rule,' tied to a concrete reason (the syntax is small and specific). It does not name an alternative reference tool such as strategy_schema or explain when this is NOT needed, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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