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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description adds real value by disclosing coverage limits (not all companies are researched) and the two distinct failure/redirect outcomes. It stops short of describing the shape or size of the returned guide.

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 primary action, then the coverage caveat, then edge-case routing. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at the return; "sourced guide" is only loosely defined. However, for a single-parameter read tool it covers the failure modes an agent actually needs to handle.

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% and the single parameter is an undescribed string, but the description compensates by specifying that it accepts either a company slug or a catalog ID and by explaining suite-ID behavior. Format details (slug syntax, ID shape) remain unstated.

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+resource ("Retrieve the sourced guide") and names the two accepted identifier types (company slug or catalog ID). It is clearly distinguishable from the GTM-oriented siblings, though that differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 explicit conditional guidance: only selected companies have detailed research, suite IDs redirect to choose_product with separate guide IDs, and unknown IDs yield not_researched. An agent knows what each input class will produce before calling.

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