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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('as Markdown') and the scope of the content (growth rules, API, tools, limits), which is behavioral information not fully captured by the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the key safety trait ('Read-only') and then immediately states what the tool returns and what content is included. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundancy beyond the harmless 'Read-only' echo of the annotation.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the return type, the content domains, and the read-only nature. The optional filtering behavior is fully documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, and the schema already provides clear parameter documentation for 'section', including an example and the default behavior when omitted. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond that. This matches the baseline 3 for well-covered schemas.

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: it 'Returns the full agent guide as Markdown' and lists the guide's contents (growth rules, API, tools, limits). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_forest or get_forest_stats, which return forest data rather than an explanatory guide. The purpose is unambiguous and useful for tool selection.

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 description clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving the agent guide, and the optional 'section' parameter in the schema further defines use cases such as 'Limits' or 'MCP tools'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to infer appropriate usage. No misleading or conflicting guidance is present.

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