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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and side-effect behavior are covered without description help. The description adds real substance about the guide's scope, notably that it defines what an agent may and may not do on the researcher's behalf. It does not say what form the response takes (prose vs structured) or how large it is, which matters for a doc-dump 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 sentences, zero waste, with the identity of the resource front-loaded and the call condition placed second. The three-item content list earns its length by telling the agent what it will actually get.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the whole burden of saying what comes back, and it largely does by naming the guide's three sections. A note on response format or size would fully close the gap for a documentation tool of this kind.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing is missing on this dimension.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Return revisia's own guide for AI agents') and enumerates the guide's contents: platform purpose, the ten-stage methodological spine, and the agent's permission boundaries. This clearly separates it from every sibling tool, which are operational (screening, extraction, rob, export) rather than documentation.

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 gives explicit triggering guidance: 'Call this when unsure how a step of the review works before guessing.' That tells the agent the condition that selects this tool. It does not say when not to call it (e.g., not repeatedly mid-task, or deferring to revisia_account_status for runtime state), so it falls short of full alternatives guidance.

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