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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adequately describes the tool's behavior by detailing the guide's content (process, principles, page anatomies, etc.). It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, but the 'get_site_guide' name and guide-focused description make that clear.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then lists the guide's contents efficiently. The second sentence about narrowing is short and actionable. While the list of contents is dense, every element earns its place by describing what the guide covers.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description sufficiently explains the guide's scope and how to filter it. It does not cover return format or default behavior, but for a documentation-retrieval tool this is adequate. The main gap is the lack of detailed parameter semantics for the enum parameters.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It says to 'Narrow it with page_type and noodle,' which adds meaning by indicating these parameters filter the guide. However, it does not explain the enum values, default behavior when parameters are omitted, or the effect of the brief parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the resource is a comprehensive guide for designing a whole website with MIAN, and lists its components (process, principles, page anatomies, composition, checklist). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_noodle or get_component by focusing on the entire design process, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides a clear context for when to use the tool: when designing a whole website that should not look generated. It also advises how to narrow results with page_type and noodle. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus related tools such as get_design_language or plan_site, and offers no exclusions.

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