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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing the specific contents of the returned specification, which is useful behavioral context. It does not contradict annotations and provides sufficient transparency for a read-only getter.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word earns its place. It is concise without losing key details.

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 simple, parameterless read-only tool without an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. No additional context is needed.

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 description bears no obligation to explain parameter syntax or meaning. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not hinder parameter understanding in any way.

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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'complete Trident 2D specification', enumerating contents (grammar, syntax, coordinate system, etc.). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_quick_start or get_comprehensive_example by emphasizing 'deep understanding'.

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 phrase 'Use this when you need deep understanding of the Trident DSL' provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusions that would earn a 5.

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