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

The description accurately advertises a read-only retrieval operation, but the annotations include destructiveHint: true, which directly contradicts this. This is a serious inconsistency that could mislead the agent into thinking the tool might delete or modify data. Per the rubric, this contradiction forces a score of 1.

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 moderately long but information-dense: it covers resource, content structure, error handling, content provenance, and a cross-reference. No sentence is wasted, though it could be slightly trimmed to improve brevity.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, return content for distinct guide types, error handling, and how to find valid slugs. The annotation contradiction is not the description's fault, but it affects the overall completeness of the tool's behavioral contract.

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?

The single slug parameter is fully described in the input schema with examples (100% coverage). The description reinforces the examples and adds error behavior for unknown slugs, but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema, so a baseline 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?

Clearly describes retrieving a single product guide by slug, distinguishes between buying guides and rumor pages, and differentiates from sibling list_product_guides. The verb 'Hämtar' (retrieves) and specific resource make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use list_product_guides to see all available slugs, provides example slugs, and explains what content to expect for each guide type. While it doesn't enumerate all sibling exclusions, it gives sufficient context for appropriate selection.

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