Growth Choice Docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint:false, and openWorldHint:false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds useful return context (full structured content plus canonical source URL), but does not describe error or not-found behavior, which matters for a slug lookup.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its document types, followed by what is returned. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by stating the response contains full structured content and a canonical source URL. With only two well-documented parameters and full annotation coverage, little is missing beyond not-found handling.

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% and the slug example values are documented in the schema itself, so the description is not required to explain it. The description says nothing about the optional `type` hint parameter, which changes lookup behavior, leaving the schema to do all the work. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (Growth Choice document) and enumerates the content types it covers. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_docs/search_docs by requiring a slug, but never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"By its slug" implies the tool is for direct lookup when the identifier is already known, which hints at the correct usage. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_docs or list_docs, and no mention of what happens on a miss or an ambiguous type.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so safety is fully covered without the description. The one piece of added value is the return shape ('title, summary, and canonical URL'), which is not otherwise available since there is no output schema; however, nothing is said about result volume, pagination beyond the limit parameter, or ordering.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the scope and the return fields front-loaded. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 simple read-only list tool, the description covers purpose and return fields, and annotations carry the safety profile. The meaningful gap is the undocumented limit parameter and resulting pagination behavior, which an agent needs in order to page through more than the default of 10 items.

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 only 50%: 'type' is documented in the schema (with an enum of five values), but 'limit' has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The description's 'by content type' merely restates the required parameter, and it says nothing about the limit parameter's pagination role, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('List Growth Choice published documents') plus the organizing dimension ('by content type'), which is enough to distinguish it from get_doc (single fetch) and search_docs (query-based). It never names those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 word 'List' plus 'by content type' implies a browse/enumerate use case, which contrasts implicitly with a lookup or search tool. However, there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement or reference to search_docs/get_doc, so the agent must infer the boundary from verb semantics alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by adding what annotations can't: the result format ('ranked results with canonical URLs') and the bounded published-documentation corpus. It stops short of stating result-count limits, pagination, or empty-result behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler. Scope comes first, return characteristics second — properly front-loaded and proportionate to a two-parameter search tool.

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 a 100%-covered schema and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so ('ranked results with canonical URLs'). What's left out — pagination, result caps, behavior on no matches — is minor for a simple search but not nothing.

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 100% — both params are documented and the type enum is spelled out in the schema. The description's list of content types ('articles, guides, case studies, and service pages') loosely mirrors part of the enum, but omits company, industry, and methodology, so it adds little the schema doesn't already say. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Search Growth Choice published documentation') and enumerates the content types in scope, so the agent knows exactly what corpus is being hit. It doesn't name the sibling tools (get_doc, list_docs) to contrast against, so the distinction from 'list' and 'get' is only implied by the verb.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Nothing tells the agent to prefer this over list_docs for discovery, or to follow up with get_doc to fetch a full document — that routing must be inferred from the verb alone.

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