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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's added value is the return shape: markdown text with canonical URL, takeaways, sections, checklist, and FAQs. This is meaningful disclosure beyond annotations, though it omits not-found or error behavior.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the return contents without waste.

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 usefully enumerates what the response contains, which is exactly what an agent needs. Only gap is behavior on invalid or missing slug, which the annotations do not cover.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the sole slug parameter is fully documented there, including the example and the source tool. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Return the full text) and resource (one FundingTracker MCA guide), which distinguishes it from the list-oriented sibling search_mca_guides by emphasizing a single guide. No explicit sibling naming, so it falls short of 5.

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 description implies retrieval of a single known guide but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. The routing hint (slug from search_mca_guides) lives only in the schema, not the description.

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