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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful structural fact that results are grouped by section, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or language fallback behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed immediately by the routing hint. 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 only one optional enumerated parameter, the description adequately conveys the shape of the result (whole index, sectioned) and its role relative to find_endpoint. A note on result volume or ordering would close the remaining 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 'lang' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the enum and default. The description adds no additional semantics about language selection, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precisely what is returned (the whole guide index, grouped by section) and contrasts it with find_endpoint's subject-based API reference. It only implicitly signals its relation to search_docs ('before searching for it'), so sibling differentiation is strong but not complete.

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?

Gives a clear use case ('see what exists before searching') and an explicit pairing instruction with find_endpoint, and rules the API reference out of this tool. No explicit negative case (e.g. when not to use it vs read_doc) is given.

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