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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes artifact and routing-surface status, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not discuss possible absence/error behavior or what 'registry row' excludes.

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 one tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then appends the useful status detail without unnecessary elaboration.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema present, and safe annotations, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns conceptually, and nothing critical 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 provides 100% coverage for the single slug parameter, including an example ('start-a-company'). The description only repeats that lookup is by slug and does not add significant meaning 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get one guide's registry row') and identifies the key retrieval criterion ('by slug'). It also names the returned status info, and the contrast with list_guides makes the single-item scope clear, so the tool is easily distinguished from its siblings.

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 makes the intended use clear: retrieve exactly one guide registry row when you have its slug. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the singular 'one guide' and the slug parameter provide sufficient context against the sibling list_guides tool.

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