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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral content beyond that: it returns sourced page text and explicitly does not calculate or validate a candle recipe, preventing misuse as a computation tool.

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 core action, and the second sentence handles return value and negative scope with no filler. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating what is returned (sourced page text) and what is not done. Annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the undefined canonical path format.

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?

Only one parameter, but schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the semantics. 'Canonical path' hints that the argument is a stable identifier rather than free text, yet it doesn't define the path format or constraints beyond the schema's maxLength.

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 (read an existing public candle math page) and adds the retrieval scope by canonical path. It implicitly separates itself from list_guides by being a read-by-key operation, but never names that sibling, so a 5 is not warranted.

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?

It says the page must already exist and be public, which is implied usage context, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus list_guides, no note on how a canonical path is obtained, and no preconditions beyond the schema's required field.

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