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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it supports bulk execution via ids, which is useful, but doesn't detail behavior like pagination or response format.

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 compact but includes a list of actions that may be redundant given the tool name. The flattened action note is confusing. It's not front-loaded with the most critical info.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what affiliations are returned, how to use cursor for pagination, or what the 'account' parameter does. The bulk support note is helpful but incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameter names (email, doc, name, created_at_ini/end, cursor) but doesn't explain their semantics or how they relate to the affiliations action. The 'id' parameter is mentioned but not clarified.

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 it's for reading contacts/clients in Guru and lists actions including affiliations, but the tool name already implies affiliations. It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like guru_affiliations_get or guru_contacts_get, and the flattened action is ambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description lists actions but doesn't explain when to use affiliations vs other contact-related tools. No exclusions or context provided.

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