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 result includes artifact and routing-surface status, which gives context about the return scope, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling or data freshness, which is acceptable given 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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and the key distinguishing detail (by slug, with status). Every word serves a purpose, with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present, full annotation coverage), the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what is retrieved and via what key. A brief mention of a common failure case (e.g., unknown slug) would make it fully complete, but nothing essential is missing.

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% for the single 'slug' parameter, which is already well-documented with an example. The description confirms that the slug is the lookup key but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific lookup method ('by slug'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_guides (which lists multiple) and list_taxonomy, making the tool's scope immediately obvious.

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: use when you need a single guide by its slug, as opposed to listing all guides. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving the routing decision mostly to the agent's inference.

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