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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is fully covered. The description's added value is scoping content ('nothing due' for study, 'tags, duplicates, formatting, card links' for card_authoring), but it doesn't say whether the guides are static text, versioned, or how large they are.

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 with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by a tight five-item enumeration where every clause adds discriminating detail. No filler, no redundancy.

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 an output schema present, return-value format need not be explained, and the topic content descriptions plus full schema coverage make the definition usable as-is. The only missing piece is guidance on ordering (e.g., read card_authoring before bulk_authoring).

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 enum is self-explanatory, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the terse 'Guide topic.' schema text by expanding what each of the five enum values actually covers, which helps an agent pick the right topic without guessing.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Returns a Nibomo guide') and enumerates the five topic documents with parenthetical summaries, so an agent knows exactly what corpus it is retrieving. It never explicitly names a sibling tool, so it falls just short of full differentiation, but none of the siblings (sql_execute, submit_review, etc.) resemble a guide fetcher.

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: an agent can infer it should pull 'card_authoring' before authoring cards or 'sql_dialect' before writing SQL, but nothing states when to call this versus just calling sql_query or submit_review directly. There are no explicit preconditions or exclusions.

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