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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond them — that each guide comes with its address/URL — but says nothing about volume, ordering, or that results differ per market.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, which is good structurally, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity costs information an agent needs rather than trimming redundancy.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, so the bar is low, and annotations plus schema cover most of it. The remaining gap is that the description never connects the tool to the market dimension or explains what a 'guide' record contains beyond an address.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'market' parameter has a thorough enum explanation including catalogue separation, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the market parameter, which is acceptable at full coverage but leaves the baseline score appropriate.

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 names the resource (WashyDish buying guides about dishwashers) and even the return content ('avec leur adresse'), but supplies no verb and no scope statement, so an agent must infer from the tool name that this is a listing operation. It does not differentiate the tool from siblings such as search or fetch, which could plausibly also surface guides.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites. An agent gets no signal about why it would pick list_guides over search or search_models when looking for buying-guide content.

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