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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only published guides are returned and that every field is sourced, but it is silent on what happens for an unknown or unpublished slug and never mentions that the 'limit' parameter can truncate the ranked places.

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 front-loaded clause identifies resource, selector, and payload with no filler. 'Every field sourced' is compact to the point of being cryptic about what provenance data actually appears.

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 no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape (introduction plus ranked places), which is the main thing an agent needs. Gaps remain around error/not-found behavior and whether ranking order is guaranteed.

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%, so both parameters are already documented including the slug example and the limit default/max. The description reinforces slug-based selection and the published-only constraint but adds no syntax, format, or behavior detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names a single, specific resource ('One published Fulham guide by slug') and states what comes back (introduction and ranked places). The singular 'one' plus 'by slug' implicitly separates it from list_guides, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by slug' signals it is the follow-up to a list_guides lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as get_place for individual items.

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