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

Annotations already state readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that the record covers current status, withdrawal, termination, or replacement, and names the replacement guidance. 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 dense sentence that front-loads the key behavior and then lists the returned fields. Slightly overlong due to the editorial 'the part that matters clinically' phrase, but it remains organized and largely economical.

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 simple one-parameter lookup tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the input form, the scope, and the full set of returned information including the clinically important current/withdrawn status. No critical call-time context 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'id' is already documented with the NICE reference format and an example. The description restates reference examples but does not add materially new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving the published record for a single piece of NICE guidance by reference number, and enumerates what is included. It is distinct from the search/topic/recent sibling tools even without naming them, though it lacks an explicit active verb and does not name a specific sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by reference number': an agent should call this when it has a NICE reference like TA1040 or NG101. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or contrast it with nice_search_guidance, nice_guidance_by_topic, or nice_recent_guidance.

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