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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: the output is plain text, includes specific metadata like evidence label/update date/sources, and is capped at about 12,000 characters. It also reveals that the full page is available via URL, matching the readOnly/idempotent 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the core behavior, and saves every word. It states what the result is, what it contains, and the main limitation, with no filler or redundancy.

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, the description covers the output shape, metadata included, and truncation behavior. The schema and annotation context already provide safety and parameter constraints, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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% for the single required slug parameter, including a pattern, max length, and an example. The description does not need to add much parameter-level meaning, and the example in the schema already clarifies what 'slug' means. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 operation: retrieve one specific guide as plain text, with its evidence label, update date, and sources. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_guides and list_categories by emphasizing the singular result and content format.

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 itself does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, but the input schema adds 'Guide slug from search_guides', implying the expected workflow is to call search_guides first. This is clear context rather than leaving the agent completely unguided, so it earns the middle-ground score.

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