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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: 'no login, no AI, nothing is saved,' which tells the agent there is no auth prerequisite and no side effect of any kind. It stops short of describing the response envelope, though the output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the return payload, then the usage note and routing hint. The first sentence is long and enumerative (clients, venues, acts, projects, gigs, days, run of show, shifts, crew), which is informative but slightly dense; no sentence is wasted.

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 reference tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what the payload contains, that no auth or persistence is involved, and which sibling performs validation. No gap an agent would need to close before calling it.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-level for the description to compensate for, and it correctly implies a no-argument call through 'no login, no AI, nothing is saved.'

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 verb and resource ('Return the format of a Soundcheck import file') and enumerates the delivered payload: UEF 2.0 JSON Schema, linked entities, minimal and festival examples, and a docs URL. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling check_import_file, which it explicitly names as the validator rather than the format source.

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?

Explicitly frames itself as 'A reference for drafting or editing UEF' and routes the alternative case to check_import_file ('checks a draft locally'). The when-to-use condition and the sibling boundary are both stated, nothing left to inference.

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