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. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields (summary, key facts, risk level, link), but says nothing about behavior on an invalid or unknown slug.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return payload, then the slug source. Zero wasted text.

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-item lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and the slug source, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The only gap is not describing lang's fallback, which the schema already covers.

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 50%: the lang parameter is fully documented in the schema (enum, default from query language), but slug has only length constraints. The description compensates by explaining slug's provenance from the sibling tools, though it never mentions lang or its default behavior.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('one kartvelians.com guide'), and the exact return contents (summary, key facts, risk level, link). The slug-based retrieval is clearly distinguished from the list/search siblings, so an agent can tell it apart without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the slug comes from ('from search_guides_for_georgians_in_us or list_guides_for_georgians_in_us'), which routes it to the right upstream tool. It doesn't state a when-not-to-use condition, but the retrieval-after-listing workflow is unambiguous.

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