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 result includes 'artifact + routing-surface status,' which is useful context, but it doesn't disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens with an unknown slug) or clarify the unusual 'registry row' phrasing. With annotations present, the bar is lower; this meets it without exceeding.

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?

A single 17-word sentence with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the 'with its artifact + routing-surface status' qualifier trails economically behind it.

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 getter with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers what it does, how it retrieves (by slug), and what is included in the result. The only gaps are domain-specific jargon ('registry row', 'routing-surface') and explicit sibling routing, but the output schema mitigates the jargon and the tool's simplicity keeps the risk low.

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% — the schema already documents slug with a concrete example ('start-a-company'). The description only reinforces 'by slug' without adding format, case-sensitivity, or usage detail, so it holds at the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('one guide's registry row'), and the retrieval mechanism ('by slug'). The singular 'one' clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_guides, list_capabilities, and list_taxonomy, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 usage context — call this when you have a specific slug and want a single guide's row — but it never explicitly names list_guides as the alternative for batch listing or states when-not-to-use. No exclusions or routing conditions are given.

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