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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the result includes artifact and routing-surface status, but it does not disclose error behavior, missing-slug handling, or access prerequisites; acceptable for a simple read-only lookup but not rich.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by the additional included-status detail. No filler, and every clause earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema, the description is complete: it names the lookup key and the included status fields. The terms 'artifact' and 'routing-surface status' are somewhat jargon-heavy, but the output schema can carry the structure, so only minor detail prevents a 5.

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 slug parameter is documented with an example (start-a-company). The description only restates the by-slug lookup, adding no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is 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 uses the verb 'get' with a specific resource ('one guide's registry row') and a clear lookup key ('by slug'), distinguishing it from the sibling list_guides. It also signals the returned content (artifact + routing-surface status), so an agent can infer the operation's scope.

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 establishes clear use context: call this when you have a slug and need exactly one guide registry row. It does not explicitly name list_guides as the batch alternative, but the contrast between 'one' and the plural sibling name is enough guidance for the common case.

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