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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the response (summary, key facts, risk level, link), which matters because no output schema exists.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs the return contents and the slug's provenance without a wasted word. Nothing is padded or restated from the title.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the identifier source, and the return fields, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It stops short of mentioning behavior on an unknown slug, but no critical information is missing.

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 only 50%: 'lang' is documented in the schema, but 'slug' carries no schema description. The description compensates by stating that the slug is a guide identifier obtained from the two sibling tools, giving the agent a concrete source and format expectation for the required parameter.

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?

Specific verb ('Get'), specific resource ('one kartvelians.com guide'), specific lookup key ('by slug'), and it enumerates the returned fields (summary, key facts, risk level, link). This distinguishes it cleanly from the two sibling tools, which are list/search rather than single-item retrieval.

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 parenthetical '(from search_guides_for_georgians_in_us or list_guides_for_georgians_in_us)' tells the agent exactly which upstream tools produce a valid slug, establishing the intended call order. There is no explicit when-not-to-use clause, but the sequencing guidance is concrete.

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