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 the notion of a 'registry row' with artifact and routing-surface status, but this is more return-content detail than behavioral disclosure; no additional mutation, auth, or error behavior is described.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then appends the key return scope. No words are wasted, and the title reinforces the same concise message.

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 and safety annotations, the description is complete. The required slug is documented, the return scope is stated, and annotations cover the operation's non-destructive nature, so an agent has everything needed 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the slug parameter already includes a concrete example ('start-a-company'). The description says 'by slug' but adds no semantic detail beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource construction: 'Get one guide's registry row by slug,' which clearly identifies both the operation and the target. It also specifies what is included ('artifact + routing-surface status'), distinguishing it from the sibling list_guides tool without needing to open the schema.

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 implies singular lookup by slug, which contrasts with list_guides for enumerating all guides. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over list_guides or list_capabilities, so it lacks a direct when-not/alternative statement.

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