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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar for behavioral disclosure is lowered. The description adds valuable context: it returns sections, action items, and linked principles, and clarifies that the slug must be stable and obtained from list/search. No contradictions with 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and examples. Every sentence serves a clear function: what it does, when to use it, and how to choose alternatives. No wasted words.

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 a single parameter with full schema coverage, informative annotations, and an existing output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context: purpose, usage guidance, return content, and differentiation from siblings. No gaps.

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 100% and both schema and description provide the same examples ('security-application', 'observable-evaluation'). The description adds context that the slug should come from guides.list or guides.search, but this is usage guidance, not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool retrieves a full application guide by its stable slug, with concrete examples. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools guides.list and guides.search by specifying when to use each.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you already have the guide slug from guides.list or guides.search') and contrasts with alternatives: 'Prefer guides.search when the user describes a topic in natural language; prefer guides.list when you need the full inventory.'

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