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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that a set guide represents the user's own voice, overrides default craft rules, and that a note is returned when no guide is set. This gives an agent useful behavioral expectations without contradicting 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?

Three sentences with no filler: the main purpose is front-loaded, then parameter usage, then the override/fallback behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the key channel values, and the fallback behavior. It is slightly light on what a guide actually contains, but this is not essential to invoking the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by mapping linkedin_dm to DMs/connection notes and email to emails, adding meaning beyond the bare enum. It does not explain linkedin_comment or reddit_comment, but those labels are self-descriptive in context.

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 identifies the verb (Return) and resource (user's writing style guide for one channel), and ties it to drafting channel outreach. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_personalization_guide or get_skill_guide, but the resource and channel-scoping make the core purpose unambiguous.

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?

It states when to use the tool (when drafting a channel's outreach) and gives explicit instructions for choosing linkedin_dm vs email. It doesn't list exclusions or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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