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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a 'plain-text summary', which gives some return-format context, but it does not disclose additional behavior such as content length, language, or what happens if a topic is unsupported.

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 with no filler. Every word adds value: it specifies the output format ('plain-text summary'), the source ('PeanutButterJelly.io'), and the two possible topics ('crypto exchange or cold wallet').

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, read-only tool with a complete schema and annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It explains the return format and the domain, and no output schema exists to require additional return-value documentation.

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%: the single required parameter 'topic' has an enum and a description ('Which guide to summarize.'). The tool description adds light context by naming the two guide areas, but the schema already carries the semantic weight, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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-resource pair: it provides a plain-text summary of a specific guide page on PeanutButterJelly.io. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_deal and search_deals, which relate to deals, not buying guides.

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 tool's purpose makes its usage context fairly obvious: use it to retrieve a summary of either the crypto exchange guide or the cold wallet guide. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over its siblings or mention any exclusions, leaving usage guidance mostly implied.

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