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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by naming the payload contents (scale, meanings, methodology version, disclaimer), which substitutes for the missing output schema. It does not mention auth requirements or return format, keeping it short of a 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 return contents with zero filler. Every listed item (scale, grade meanings, methodology version, disclaimer) is a distinct output the caller needs to know about.

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, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates what comes back and the safety profile is carried by annotations. The only slight gap is that it does not describe the return structure or whether the disclaimer is a separate field, but no output schema exists to cover that either.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose semantics need explaining, and the description correctly spends no words on parameters.

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 gives a specific verb ('Returns') and enumerates the exact resource contents: the A-D Agent Risk Rating scale, grade meanings, methodology version, and disclaimer. That is far more informative than the title alone. However, it never mentions how it differs from the sibling tools explain_grade and self_check, so the agent must infer that this one returns the whole scale rather than a single grade explanation.

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 and no comparison against the siblings. An agent deciding between get_scale and explain_grade gets no explicit signal that get_scale is the wholesale reference lookup while explain_grade is per-grade. Usage is only implied by the content listing.

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