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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that by disclosing what the response contains — verified-vs-official claims, hidden fees, pre-trade steps — which tells an agent what it can rely on the result for. No output schema exists, so this content disclosure matters.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the returned contents. The parenthetical list of three examples is the only slightly bulky part, but it buys real clarity about path shape.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values and does so by enumerating the guide's sections. Combined with annotations covering the read-only profile and full schema coverage on the single parameter, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the search_guides dependency is missing.

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%, so the baseline is a 3; the description earns above baseline by supplying three distinct path shapes across categories (/india/..., /compare/..., /wallets/...), which conveys the path taxonomy better than the schema's single example. It still doesn't describe path format rules or failure behavior for an invalid path.

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 and resource ("Get full verified details for a path") and enumerates the payload an agent receives: official claim vs. verified reality, pre-trade steps, hidden fees, providers, FAQs. Three literal example paths make the resource concrete. It stops short of naming search_guides as the source of valid paths, so sibling differentiation is left to the schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'path' plus the example paths suggest this is a follow-up call after locating a guide, but the description never says 'use search_guides first' or when not to call this. The routing hint exists only in the schema's parameter text, not in the description.

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