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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds value by disclosing the error behavior for unknown ids and confirming no network fetch. The enumeration of returned fields is largely redundant with the output schema, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and id provenance, with error and no-web-fetch caveats trailing. The field list (provider, URL, applicability, limitations, labels, verified date, hash, commit) is somewhat long and duplicates the output schema, costing a point.

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 one required, fully-described parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the remaining gaps: id provenance and unknown-id error behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, though the return-field recital is redundant given the output schema.

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% with a pattern and example already present, so the baseline is 3; the description earns the extra point by telling the agent where to obtain the id (from search_guidance), which is semantics the schema cannot express.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Return one curated record by its stable id") and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling search_guidance by positioning this as the id-based fetch, not the lookup. An agent can pick between get_guidance and search_guidance without inspecting either schema.

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?

Explicitly says ids come from search_guidance, states the failure mode for unknown ids, and rules out the web-fetch alternative ("nothing is fetched from the web"). The when-to-use chain and the exclusion are both present.

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