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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds context like 'public' (no auth expected) and 'summary' (not full content), but it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., unknown slug), return format, or any side effects. This is a minimal but honest disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and parameter. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or ambiguity.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it clarifies the resource is a 'summary' and that the input is a 'slug'. However, without an output schema, the agent does not know the exact shape of the summary, which prevents a perfect score.

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% (slug is described with an example). The description simply repeats 'by slug' without adding new meaning. Per calibration, baseline is 3 when the schema already documents parameters, and the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('public compliance guide summary'), and the lookup mechanism ('by slug'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_guides (list vs. get) and get_blog_post (different resource type).

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 clear context: use when you have a specific slug and want a public compliance guide summary. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over list_guides for a single-guide fetch.

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