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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations don't: the response shape changes depending on whether an optional parameter is supplied — a non-obvious trait absent from the schema, which only says 'Which guide.'

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 short clauses with the purpose front-loaded and the mode logic immediately after; nothing is padded. The parenthetical enumeration of all seven slugs duplicates the enum and is the one segment that does not fully earn its space, though it aids scanning.

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 single optional enum parameter with full annotation coverage, an output schema, and no nesting, the description covers purpose, both invocation modes, and the content scope. Nothing an agent needs in order to select and call this tool is missing.

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 already enumerates the seven guides, so the parenthetical list is largely redundant. However, the description supplies the crucial semantic the schema omits: the parameter is optional and its absence yields a catalog rather than a guide, which meaningfully upgrades what the schema conveys.

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 resource — practical guides on apparel wholesale work — and explicitly distinguishes the two operating modes: bare call returns the list, slug call returns that guide's full text. It never names a sibling tool, so differentiation from get_faq, get_overview, and search_samplyn is left to the reader's inference.

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 conditional 'with no slug ... with a slug ...' gives clear, actionable context for both invocation paths, which is exactly the guidance an agent needs to pick a mode. It stops short of exclusions or naming alternatives (e.g. when to prefer search_samplyn or get_faq instead), so it is context-rich but not fully prescriptive.

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