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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the resource is public (no auth implied) and that the tool returns the complete section as opposed to a summary or snippet. This is useful context beyond the annotation flags.

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 one sentence that front-loads the usage condition and the source of the ID. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 single-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with a complete input schema, explicit annotations, and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context: when to call it, what it returns, and where the ID comes from. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

The schema already documents the single parameter fully (pattern, type, description) at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description reiterates that the ID is public and comes from the user or search_guides but does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description.

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 title 'Get public guide section' names the verb and resource, and the description clarifies that it returns 'the complete section' for a given ID. It also distinguishes itself from search_guides by framing the ID as something search_guides returns, so an agent can tell it apart from the search sibling.

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 explicitly opens with 'Use this when the user supplies a public EPK guide section ID or wants the complete section identified by search_guides,' providing a clear trigger condition. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use or other alternatives, but the search_guides reference implies the division of labor.

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