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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses that the return includes source links and factual check dates when present, and that drafts/supplier reviews are excluded from results.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the boilerplate documentation link. Nothing is padded, though the trailing URL sentence adds no invocation value.

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-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the input source, the content returned, and the exclusions. Missing only error behavior for invalid or unpublished paths.

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?

The single path parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does identify the path as a published guide path obtained from search_guides, which gives the value provenance, but it does not state format, syntax, or what happens on an unknown path. Adequate but incomplete.

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 (read) and resource (a published guide) and grounds it in the sibling workflow by saying the path comes from search_guides. It also scopes out drafts and supplier reviews, which separates it from a general search. It stops short of explicitly naming search_guides as the discovery step an agent must call first.

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?

"a published guide path from search_guides" establishes the prerequisite and the ordering (search first, then read), and "No drafts or supplier reviews" tells the agent what this tool will refuse to return. There is no explicit when-not-to-use statement or named alternative, but the context is clear.

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