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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is largely covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond the annotation: results are scoped to guides 'this business is entitled to,' which explains a non-obvious filtering behavior an agent should expect.

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 core purpose, then a definition/example clause, then the next-step pointer. Slightly dense in the single long opening sentence but every clause carries information.

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 no-param, read-only list with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (entitled guides) and what to do next. A brief note on result shape or emptiness would make it fully complete, but nothing essential is missing.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description's mention of entitlement scoping is the only implicit input-like constraint, and it is stated.

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 ('List the guided walkthroughs available to this business') and immediately defines what a guide is with concrete examples. It clearly differs from the sibling get_guide, which retrieves one 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the next step: 'Follow up with get_guide to read a guide's steps.' That gives a clear when-to-use and a named alternative, though it does not state any exclusions or preconditions for calling this tool.

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