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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the filtering behavior (only published guides linked to approved tools), which goes beyond annotations. It omits details like pagination and response shape, but for a safe read operation this is adequate.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that packs the verb, resource, and filter criteria with no wasted words. It achieves maximal information density for the purpose it conveys.

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 description covers the core resource and filtering rule, which is enough to understand what the tool lists. However, with no output schema and no parameter explanation, the agent is left without details on pagination, locale handling, or the returned structure. This is a moderate gap, not a fatal one.

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%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining limit, locale, and offset. It doesn't mention any parameters. While the parameter names are reasonably self-explanatory and the schema provides ranges and enums, the description still leaves a gap for an agent unfamiliar with expected values.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a target resource ('guides'), and clear qualifiers ('published', 'linked only to approved tools') that make the tool's scope explicit and distinct from sibling tools like get_guide or list_stacks. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as search_tools or list_stacks. No exclusions or alternative routes are mentioned, so the agent must infer the appropriate use case from the filter conditions alone.

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