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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes 'artifact + routing-surface status,' which is useful context, but it does not disclose behaviors like not-found handling, authentication, or limits beyond what annotations already imply.

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 short sentence with no filler. The core action and identifier are front-loaded, and the additional context about artifact and routing-surface status is appended compactly without redundancy.

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?

Given a single parameter, high schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential information an agent needs. It falls just short of complete by not explicitly positioning itself relative to list_guides, but the low complexity makes this a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single required parameter 'slug' is already described in the schema, including an example. The description only repeats 'by slug' without adding extra semantic meaning or edge-case guidance, so it neither hurts nor significantly improves on 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 states a specific verb ('get'), a specific resource ('one guide's registry row'), and the key identifier ('by slug'). It also distinguishes this tool from list_guides by emphasizing the singular 'one' versus the sibling's plural listing behavior.

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?

Use is implied: you need a slug and want one guide's registry row, not a list. However, there is no explicit mention of when to prefer this over list_guides or what to do when the slug does not exist, leaving the routing somewhat implicit.

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