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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a useful redundancy note (core rules come with the server, job tools apply production defaults), but says nothing about response size, staleness, or versioning of the guide.

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 sentences, content list front-loaded, no filler. The second sentence's phrasing ('Optional reference:') is slightly awkward and would read better as a clause, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description enumerates the guide's coverage areas precisely. Combined with the annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to decide and invoke correctly; only the explicit use-trigger is thin.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-related ambiguity exists.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Returns the Control Plane operating guide') and enumerates the guide's topics, so an agent knows exactly what content comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_cpln_skill, which is the one genuinely ambiguous neighbor.

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?

It says the guide is an 'optional reference' and that core rules already ship with the server, which hints at when not to call it, but it never states a positive trigger condition for when an agent should fetch it. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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