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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: stubs return an error instead of a placeholder, and content matches performix.app/learn/<slug>. This clarifies failure modes without contradicting the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the primary action comes first, the content equivalence note is one short sentence, and the stub caveat is clearly separated. Every sentence contributes practical information with no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: how to identify the part, what content to expect, and the important error case for stubs. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 input schema fully documents the single slug parameter, including an example and a source note. The description reinforces that the slug comes from list_guide_parts, but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('full body of one Team Performance Science Guide part'), and identifies the key identifier ('by slug'). It also names the sibling list operation it depends on, making it easy to distinguish from list_guide_parts and get_guide.

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 gives clear usage context: call with a slug obtained from list_guide_parts, and check the status field first to avoid stub errors. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools or saying when not to use this tool, but the guidance is sufficient for correct selection in most cases.

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