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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: each row exposes a status of live/draft/stub, enabling the caller to determine publishability before fetching a part.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds useful context about status and the sister call. Slightly long, but every clause contributes to correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

Given zero parameters, read-only annotations, and an existing output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the exact list scope, the status semantics, and the relationship to get_guide_part. Nothing material 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 has zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. It focuses on output semantics instead, which is appropriate and adds value.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the exact resource: the 12 parts (8 numbered + 4 appendices) of the Team Performance Science Guide. It also distinguishes this from get_guide_part and list_guides by specifying the full table of contents scope.

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 explains a concrete usage context: call this before get_guide_part to check which parts are publishable via the status field. It doesn't enumerate all sibling alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for selection.

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