Read a usage guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds that the payload is Markdown and that one read per conversation suffices. It omits size/length expectations and any auth or rate considerations, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 purpose and usage rule are front-loaded in the first clause; the semicolon-delimited topic list is dense and each entry carries actionable routing information. It is long for a single-parameter tool, but almost no sentence is filler.

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?

One required enum parameter, no output schema, and the description states the return format (Markdown) and when to call. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum is machine-constrained, but the schema only says 'The guide to read.' The description supplies the actual semantics of every enum value (filters/paging, activity owner and participants, time-zone rules, Contact vs SysAdminUnit ids, tagging models, settings, feature toggles, admin operations), which is real value beyond the schema.

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 specific verb+resource (read the matching step-by-step guide) and scopes it to multi-step Creatio work, then enumerates the eight topics so an agent can map a task to a guide. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like describe-entity or read, which fetch schema/data rather than procedural guidance.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('read the matching guide before such a task') plus a cadence constraint ('once per conversation'), which prevents redundant reads. It does not explicitly name when-not to use it or point to sibling alternatives (e.g., describe-entity for schema), leaving that inference to the agent.

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