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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that only guides the business is entitled to are returned, which tells the agent the result set is permission-filtered.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core purpose, then adds examples, scope, and the follow-up action. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: what it lists, what is excluded via entitlement filtering, and what to do next. It stops short of describing the returned guide fields, but the follow-up guidance to get_guide mitigates that gap.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and the description correctly does not invent parameter details.

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 and resource ('List the guided walkthroughs') and clarifies scope with concrete examples of what a guide is. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling get_guide by explicitly positioning it as the discovery step before reading a guide's steps.

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 clearly implies this is the entry point for finding guided walkthroughs and explicitly says to follow up with get_guide. However, it does not compare against other help-related siblings like get_help_article or search_help_articles, so the when-not-to-use guidance is missing.

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