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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so little is left to add. The description does contribute the useful contrast that this returns the complete text rather than a summary, but says nothing about size, truncation, or failure behavior.

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 clause with zero waste, and the key differentiator (full text) comes first. It reads as a fragment rather than a sentence, which is mildly under-specified rather than verbose.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, this is close to sufficient: the agent knows the input source, the returned granularity, and the safety profile. Only edge cases such as invalid slugs or text length are unaddressed.

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 0%, but the single enum parameter is self-documenting with all six allowed slugs. The description adds the one thing the enum cannot: where the slug values come from, namely list_guides.

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?

Identifies the resource (one guide) and the returned scope (full text), and explicitly ties it to 'slug from list_guides', which separates it from the sibling listing tool. The verb is only implied ('read/retrieve'), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 phrase 'by slug from list_guides' implies the workflow: list first, then fetch the full text of one entry. It never states when to prefer this over the siblings (get_approach, get_faq) or what happens with an invalid slug, so usage is inferred rather than spelled out.

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