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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds information annotations cannot express: the call is free and it explains current access for agents, which is behaviorally useful for planning. It does not describe response format or length, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative "Start here." followed by one dense sentence listing contents; nothing is padded. Minor redundancy between "how access works" and "explains current access for agents" costs it a point.

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?

One optional parameter, no output schema, so the description carries most of the burden of saying what comes back — and it does, by enumerating the guide's sections. Since the return is free-form prose, the lack of format detail is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 single `topic` enum is documented in detail inside the schema, including what 'all' adds and what the legacy topics cover. The description never mentions `topic` at all, so it adds nothing beyond the schema — 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?

"Returns the candle market-memory guide" names a concrete verb and resource, and "Start here" plus the enumerated contents (presets, recommended call order, band reading, access) make clear this is the orientation doc rather than any of the analysis siblings. An agent can tell immediately this is not evaluate_candle_hypothesis or get_candle_evidence_board.

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?

"Start here" is an explicit directive for when to call it, and "recommended call order" signals it should precede the sibling tools. It gives no when-not guidance or explicit alternative, but for an entry-point guide the positive case is unambiguous.

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