get_guidance_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the meaningful part: the return is plain text segmented by numbered headings, so an agent knows the output shape. It says nothing about caching or refresh semantics, failure modes for bad ids, or permissions, leaving real behavioral gaps.

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?

Roughly forty words in two sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by accepted input formats. No filler, though the parenthetical input-format clause is dense.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, two of the three parameters have no explanation anywhere, and the interaction between include_full_text and the described section-splitting output is unaddressed. An agent can call it but cannot reason about the optional arguments.

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 0%, and only ref is explained, though it is explained well with two concrete id/URL formats. The refresh and include_full_text booleans are completely undocumented, and include_full_text in particular is confusing given the description implies text is always returned.

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?

States a concrete resource and transformation: plain text of a guidance document, split into sections by numbered headings (I./A./1.). That is more specific than the name alone. It does not distinguish itself from diff_guidance, the obvious sibling that also consumes guidance documents, so it stops short of a 5.

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 never says when to reach for this tool rather than diff_guidance or the docket/document tools, and gives no prerequisites. The ref format examples are input formatting help, not usage guidance.

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