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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations—it does not describe return format, pagination, or any call constraints. With annotations covering safety, this is a minimal contribution.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the guide topics. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be strengthened by leading with an explicit verb.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description provides enough topical scope for an agent to understand what content is available. However, it omits the essential purpose verb and any routing cues relative to sibling tools, leaving a clear gap in selection guidance.

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 single language parameter is fully documented with a clear enum and default. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the resource ('Step-by-step guides') and enumerates example topics, but does not state the action explicitly (e.g., 'Lists available guides'). It also does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like list_use_cases or get_use_case, leaving the agent to infer its exact role.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_use_cases, get_use_case, or match_business. The description only lists guide topics, so usage must be inferred entirely from the name and schema.

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