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 returned row includes artifact and routing-surface status, but this is largely redundant given an output schema exists. No extra behavioral information like error handling or lookup semantics is disclosed.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get one guide's registry row by slug') and appends only the relevant status detail. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 retrieval tool with a rich output schema and non-destructive annotations, the description covers all necessary invocation details. An agent knows what to call, how to identify the target, and what kind of data to expect.

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 slug parameter is fully documented in the schema with a concrete example (start-a-company), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description merely repeats 'by slug' without adding semantic detail beyond the schema, 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 states a precise verb and resource: retrieve one guide's registry row by slug. It clearly distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_guides because it explicitly targets a single item via a slug identifier.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for fetching a single guide by slug, which implicitly differentiates it from the sibling list_tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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