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 covered. The description adds the ordering convention and page-choice semantics but does not disclose additional runtime behavior; since an output schema exists, this is only a minor gap and there is no contradiction.

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 purposeful sentences with no filler. The critical ordering instruction is front-loaded, and the enum mappings are packed compactly into a single clause. Every part of the description 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?

The tool has only one optional parameter, the schema covers it fully, the description explains every enum value, annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 schema only says 'Guide to read; defaults to guide', while the description explains exactly what each page contains (installation, conventions, catalog, imports, runnable assistant, parity, machine-readable surfaces). This goes far beyond the schema and gives the agent enough meaning to select the correct enum value confidently.

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 a clear action ('Read' / 'Select') and the resource (the Vlak guide), enumerating all five selectable pages. The purpose is unmistakable and the page options are explicitly listed, so no ambiguity remains about what the tool retrieves.

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 explicitly directs the agent to 'Read the general guide first' and maps each enum value to its intended content, which is strong guidance for parameter selection. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when get_guide is preferable to get_component or get_install, so the when-not guidance is incomplete.

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