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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the call is 'Free' (no credit cost) and the response carries a pinned identity tuple that callers must reuse — behavior an agent could not infer from 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return value, then the parameter source, then the cost/pinning rule. Dense and largely waste-free, though the compressed 'Free; always use...' clause bundles two distinct instructions into one terse line.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the key return fields and the authoring contract. With only two required params and full annotation coverage, the main remaining gap is error/version-mismatch behavior, which is minor for a read-only lookup.

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 coverage is 0%, so both parameters are bare strings with only length bounds. The description compensates partially by naming soclo_host_plan_guides as the source of skillId and catalogueVersion and implying version pinning ('always use the returned catalogueVersion'), but it never explains format, version-mismatch behavior, or what skillId identifies.

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: 'Return one complete certified guide' plus the payload contents (whole-entry identity, revision, entrySha256, authoring contract). The single-guide scope is implicitly distinguished from the sibling list tool soclo_host_plan_guides, though the differentiation is framed as parameter sourcing rather than an explicit contrast.

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?

Gives clear operational context: take skillId and catalogueVersion from soclo_host_plan_guides, and always reuse the returned catalogueVersion, revision and entrySha256 downstream. No explicit when-not or exclusion is stated, so it falls short of a 5, but an agent knows the entry point and the follow-on obligation.

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