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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: status codes (202 vs 200), terminal-failure conditions (explicit flag or failure older than 15 minutes with no retries via progressStatus.terminalInferred), the failure payload fields (success, status, French message, creationFailed, refunded, progressStatus), and the source-mode caveat that failureFacts only appears for search-engine or _CITATIONS sources, never answer mode.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded correctly, but the second paragraph is a single sprawling run-on sentence stacking many clauses (status codes, terminal flags, refunded, progressStatus sub-fields, source-mode exceptions). The content earns its place but the structure is dense and hard to scan.

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 retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates fully by describing both success and failure return shapes, polling behavior, and the source-mode restriction on failureFacts. An agent has everything needed to poll correctly and interpret results.

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% with a single required 'id' parameter already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail for the ID, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get data for a specific guide', 'Retrieves details of a specific guide'), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_guides (plural) or update_guide, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear conditional usage: returns 202 while the guide is being created, so 'poll again later', and 'Stop polling in that case' once a terminal failure is returned. This is actionable context, though it never mentions alternative tools like get_guides for listing or update_guide.

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