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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: the guide is 'public' and returns Markdown with source links and a recorded source-check date, which tells the agent what to expect from the payload.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the return shape. No filler or redundancy whatsoever.

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 tool with an output schema and full safety annotations, the essentials (purpose, input source, return nature) are present. Only minor gaps remain, such as failure behavior for an unknown slug, which is outside what the structured fields state.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter semantics. It usefully explains where the slug originates (search_refund_guides), but says nothing about its expected format, even though the schema enforces a lowercase-hyphen pattern and 100-char limit. Partial compensation only.

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 ('Retrieve a public guide') and names the sibling that supplies the slug, so an agent can tell it apart from search_refund_guides. Differentiation from get_refund_checklist is only implicit via the word 'guide', keeping it short of a perfect 5.

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 phrase 'using a slug from search_refund_guides' establishes a clear precondition and workflow (search first, then read), which is exactly the guidance an agent needs. There are no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use statements, so it falls just short of 5.

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