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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses both transient creation state (202, poll again later) and permanent failure states (200 with success=false, status=failed, French error, creationFailed, refunded, progressStatus) and instructs agents to stop polling in the terminal case.

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 opening phrase 'Get data for a specific guide' largely duplicates the next sentence 'Retrieves details of a specific guide,' which is unnecessarily redundant. However, the rest of the description is dense and well-structured, covering important polling behavior without sprawling.

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?

The description is nearly complete for a single-parameter retrieval tool: it covers the asynchronous creation case, permanent failure detection, refund semantics, and progressStatus details. It does not specify the success response shape, but this is a minor omission for an operation with a simple get-by-id contract.

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 sole parameter id is fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage), and the description does not need to add parameter-specific semantics. It adds no extra detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (Get/Retrieves) and a specific resource (details of a specific guide), which clearly distinguishes it from the list-oriented sibling get_guides. It does not explicitly contrast itself with related getters, but the target resource is unambiguous.

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 strong operational guidance about when to poll again (202) and when to stop polling (terminal failure), but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_guides or other get_* tools. Usage context is implied rather than clearly contrasted.

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