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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by disclosing the return format (full guide as Markdown body) and the locale-matching behavior when a translation exists, which informs the agent about output expectations and localization.

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?

Two clear sentences, the first front-loads the core action and resource, and the second adds the locale behavior. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description does explain the return type (Markdown body) and locale behavior, covering the most important operational aspects. It does not describe error or edge cases (e.g., when no translation or no match exists), but for a read-only tool with all-optional parameters and strong annotations, it is largely complete.

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%, so each parameter is already well documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the id vs query distinction and the locale behavior, but does not add substantive new meaning beyond what the schema already says about each parameter.

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 (Fetch a full Pionra guide) and specifies the resource with its format (Markdown body), along with the two lookup modes: by public id or by search query. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on housing, jobs, communities, or publishing, and from search_pionra, which likely returns search results rather than full 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 description conveys when to use the id vs query, but it never explicitly addresses when to choose this tool over siblings like search_pionra or get_community. Usage guidance is implied through the two lookup modes rather than explicitly stating exclusions or alternatives.

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