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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds a useful detail about including artifact and routing-surface status, but it does not describe error behavior, return structure, or any side effects. With annotation coverage, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 with no filler. Every word adds value: action, resource, lookup key, and the included status details.

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 simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and how to invoke it correctly.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter 'slug' with an example, giving 100% schema description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the lookup uses slug but does not add further semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('one guide's registry row'), and the key parameter ('by slug'). It adds helpful scope ('with its artifact + routing-surface status') and distinguishes itself from sibling list tools, which operate over collections rather than a single guide.

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 singular 'one guide' and 'by slug' imply this tool is for fetching a specific guide rather than listing all guides, but no explicit guidance or alternative is mentioned. The description does not state when to prefer get_guide over list_guides or the other siblings, leaving usage to inference.

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