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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool also returns artifact and routing-surface status, which is useful context beyond the raw schema. It does not go deeper (e.g., 404 behavior for unknown slugs, pagination, or whether status takes time to propagate), so it adds moderate value beyond the annotations.

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 direct sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then appends the status qualifier. Every word earns its place, and the information is well-ordered for quick agent parsing.

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 read-only, single-parameter, get-by-slug tool with an output schema present and annotations covering safety, only a single description sentence is needed. The description is nearly complete; the only minor gap is not explaining the format of the artifact and routing-surface status fields, but since an output schema exists that likely covers it, this is negligible.

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 single parameter 'slug' has a clear description and example ('start-a-company'). The description confirms the slug is the lookup key, but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 clear action ('Get one guide's registry row by slug') and specifies the resource (guide registry row) plus the additional status fields (artifact + routing-surface status). It is clear and distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_guides (which lists multiple guides) and list_capabilities/list_taxonomy (different resource types), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 clearly indicates 'by slug' as the key lookup mechanism, implying this is the tool to use when you need a single guide's full registry row with status info. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer list_guides over this tool (e.g., for listing all guides without status details) or mention any exclusions or context for using it.

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