Explain the certification spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the document is compiled into the server, takes no parameters, needs no credentials, and returns the identical document on every call (version 1 is pinned). Only the "performs no writes / read-only" clause is redundant with annotations.

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 what the document contains, then usage guidance, then behavioral facts, then the static-return note. Every sentence carries information, though the read-only/no-writes clause slightly overlaps the annotation hints and could be trimmed.

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 output schema, the description compensates by summarizing what the returned document contains (dimensions, grade scale, veto rule) and notes that the content is static and version-pinned. An agent has everything needed to call and consume 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly states the tool "takes no parameters," which matches the empty schema and removes any doubt about supplying input.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Return the dsh-plugin-certification specification document, version 1") and enumerates the document's contents (five graded dimensions, A–F grade scale, veto rule). It explicitly distinguishes itself from both siblings, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

It gives an explicit use case ("interpret a grade you have already read - for example to learn why a record was vetoed") and an explicit counter-case with named alternatives ("Use list_certified or get_certification instead when you want a specific plugin's data rather than the rules"). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternatives are all present.

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