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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the response is Markdown and the content is Hebrew, and only published guides are returned — material facts the annotations do not carry.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the return format and language are surfaced before the identification detail. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and one enum parameter, the definition covers what an agent needs: format (Markdown), language (Hebrew), scope (published guides), and key (slug). It stops short of behaviour for unknown slugs, though the enum largely precludes that.

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 0%, but the single parameter is an enum listing all six valid slugs, which is self-documenting. The description only adds that the slug identifies a published guide; it adds little beyond the enum, but little is needed.

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 ("Returns") and resource ("full Markdown text of one published guide") plus the lookup key. It implicitly separates itself from list_guides by saying "one", but it never names the siblings get_faq or list_guides, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 phrase "one published guide, identified by its slug" implies the tool is for fetching content once a slug is known, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no pointer to list_guides as the way to discover valid slugs. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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