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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral value by specifying the return format (slugs to pass to get_guide) and the scope of content covered. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond the structured hints.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a concrete list of topics and the return value. It is efficient, though slightly long due to the enumerated examples, but each element adds value and there is no filler.

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?

The description is comprehensive in scope and mentions the return type, but it lacks any detail about the category parameter and does not mention possible result limitations (e.g., pagination, ordering). Given there is no output schema, the description should clarify the expected return structure beyond 'slugs'. The coverage of topics is thorough, but the parameter ambiguity leaves an agent uncertain about how to use category effectively.

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 schema covers the query parameter with an example but the category parameter is only an enum without description, and the tool description does not explain either parameter. With schema description coverage at 50%, the description should compensate for the category parameter's meaning, but it only implicitly references categories (notice-types, operators, councils, codes) without clarifying how they map. This is a notable gap.

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 searches plain-English guides on appealing UK parking tickets, listing specific topics (council PCNs, private parking charges, bus lane, etc.) and explicitly notes it returns slugs for get_guide. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_contravention_codes and get_guide, giving a specific verb+resource+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 clearly indicates the tool is for finding guides and that results are slugs to pass to get_guide, implying a follow-up workflow. It implicitly separates it from search_contravention_codes by focusing on guides rather than codes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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