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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety expectations. The description adds value by specifying that the returned row includes artifact and routing-surface status, giving the agent a clearer picture of the result beyond the schema alone. Status value details are not described, but an output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 compact sentence front-loads the core action and resource, then appends the key return details. There is no filler, repeated title, or redundant schema information.

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 one-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with a full output schema and clear annotations, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what to fetch, how to identify the target, and what the row contains; nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 already fully documents the single 'slug' parameter with an example, so description coverage is 100%. The description merely mentions 'by slug' and adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 the action ('get'), the specific resource ('one guide's registry row'), the lookup key ('by slug'), and the included content ('artifact + routing-surface status'). This distinguishes it from the sibling list_guides tool, which would retrieve multiple 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?

The 'by slug' phrasing gives a clear retrieval context: use this tool when you have a specific guide slug and need a single registry entry. It does not explicitly say when to prefer list_guides or list_capabilities instead, but the singular scope is reasonably evident.

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