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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the response includes a distribution roll-up and explicitly includes guides homed to a property with no rendering surface. This is non-obvious and helps the agent understand the listing scope.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that opens with the core action and resource. The trailing enumeration and parenthetical are dense but meaningful, especially the note about guides with no rendering surface. It contains no filler, though the long list of fields makes it slightly heavy.

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 13 optional, fully documented parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values or every filter. It provides the high-level purpose and highlights the non-obvious distribution roll-up behavior, which is enough for an agent to understand the tool's scope. It could add explicit sibling routing, but that gap is already scored under usage guidelines.

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%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters, including filters like home, access, status, domain, persona, and category. The description references some output fields that map loosely to filter parameters, but it does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 names a specific verb and resource — 'List the bicycle.guide registry' — and enumerates what is included (home, status, access, standard, syndication, grounding, distribution roll-up). This clearly separates it from the sibling list_capabilities and list_taxonomy tools, which target different resources, and from get_guide, which is singular.

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 primary use case is implied by the verb and resource: call this to list the guide registry. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over get_guide, list_capabilities, or list_taxonomy, nor does it state any exclusions or alternative conditions.

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