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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context: the guides are 'general education, kept current' and 'the content IS in scope to share'. This reinforces the safe, non-destructive behavior and adds value beyond the annotation.

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 sentences: first lists topics with explanations, second gives usage guidelines. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose. Highly efficient.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's purpose, what content it returns, and when to use it. No gaps for an agent to misunderstand.

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 input schema has one enum parameter 'topic' with 0% schema description coverage. The description fully compensates by listing each enum value and explaining its content (e.g., 'buying-process (step-by-step + documents)'). This adds rich meaning beyond the raw string 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 clearly states the tool retrieves curated TuLugar guides on specific educational topics. It lists the guide names with brief explanations, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'closing_costs' and 'neighborhood_guide'. The verb is implied (retrieve/get), and the scope is well-defined.

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 description explicitly says 'ALWAYS use this for "how does buying/renting work" / process / documents questions' and clarifies that 'only personalized legal advice is not' in scope. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, making it easy for an agent to decide.

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