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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context about output format (Markdown) and that source links and a checked date are included, which goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences: first states what is returned and its components, second explains the param source. Zero waste and front-loaded.

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 an output schema likely detailing the return structure, the description need not enumerate fields, but it helpfully mentions Markdown, source links, and checked date. Combined with annotations covering safety and a single parameter explained, the definition is nearly complete.

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%, but with only one parameter (slug) the description successfully clarifies its origin (search_refund_guides). It doesn't repeat the pattern/maxLength from schema, but the origin is the key semantic the schema omits.

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 (Returns), resource (one public guide), and format (Markdown), plus two extra returned artifacts. It clearly distinguishes itself from search_refund_guides by naming it as the source of the slug.

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?

Tells the agent the slug comes from search_refund_guides, which implies the workflow (search then read). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear for a single-param retrieval tool.

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