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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only added behavioral signal is 'published', implying unpublished guides are not returned, but it says nothing about what happens on a missing slug or how locale fallback behaves.

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 sentence with zero padding; nothing is wasted. The brevity is appropriate in form, though it comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere rather than being a flaw of structure.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param, rich annotations, no output schema), so a short description is defensible. However, the undocumented locale enum — including whether omitting it returns a default language or fails — is a real gap an agent would need before calling it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% for two parameters, so the description carries the burden — yet it only echoes 'slug' and never mentions the locale parameter, its enum values, or any fallback/default behavior when a translation is unavailable. It adds essentially no meaning beyond the schema's field names.

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?

'Get a published guide by slug' names a specific verb (get), a specific resource (guide), and a qualifying scope ('published'), which distinguishes it from sibling list_guides and from get_tool/get_stack by resource type. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it lands just below 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_guides (for browsing) or search_tools (for discovery). The word 'published' hints that drafts are out of scope, but this must be inferred rather than stated.

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