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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing what the read returns ('source links and factual check dates when present') and what is excluded (drafts, supplier reviews), which is genuine added context.

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 with zero filler. The core action and its source tool are front-loaded, and the exclusion is appended as a compact constraint.

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 no output schema, the description usefully previews the returned content and scope. Coverage of error behavior (e.g., an unpublished or unknown path) is absent, which is the only notable gap for a simple single-parameter read.

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 0% and the single 'path' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the burden — and it does, specifying that the path must be a published guide path originating from search_guides. It stops short of giving format or length guidance.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a published guide path') and ties the input to its sibling search_guides, so the agent can tell it apart from that search tool. It does not address the other sibling (create_search_link), but that tool is clearly unrelated.

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?

'Read a published guide path from search_guides' plus 'No drafts or supplier reviews' makes the intended invocation context (post-search, published content only) clear. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative beyond the implied search-then-read chain.

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