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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that results are paginated and that specific example categories exist. No return format, ordering, or rate-limit context beyond annotations.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by filtering/pagination mechanics. Every clause is relevant, though the trailing category list is slightly list-like rather than instructional.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should clarify the required guideId and result shape. It covers filtering and pagination but leaves guideId and limit undocumented across both schema and description, so an agent must guess at the anchor parameter.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains 'topic' and 'offset'/'paginate' behavior and hints at valid topic values ('installation, token providers, chat UI, realtime, media'). However, the required 'guideId' and the 'limit' default/cap are never explained, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 and resource: 'Return exact code examples from an official guide.' It clarifies scope ('exact', 'from an official guide'), which distinguishes it from a general doc search. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_docs or get_guide, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It offers implied usage ('Filter by topic, or paginate with offset'), which tells the agent how to narrow or walk results. But it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as search_docs or get_guide, and no prerequisites. Minimum viable guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that sectionIndex changes the returned content and that full guides live elsewhere, but says nothing about failure modes such as out-of-range sectionIndex or unknown guideId.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the primary behavior is stated first, the sectionIndex variation second, and the resource alternative last. Slightly dense phrasing in the first clause but no filler sentences.

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 should characterize returns more fully; it does sketch the two response shapes (index + intro section, or one section) but omits error/edge behavior, valid guideId forms, and index bounds. Adequate for a simple two-parameter read tool, but not 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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains sectionIndex meaningfully (selects a specific section vs. the index/intro) but leaves guideId as a bare name with no format hints, and gives no bounds or error semantics for out-of-range indices.

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 names a specific verb (get) and resource (guide) and precisely scopes the two modes: fetching a section index plus intro section, or reading a single section. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like list_guides or search_docs, though it does point to MCP resources as an alternative surface.

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?

It states the two usage modes clearly: omit sectionIndex for the index/intro, or supply sectionIndex to read one section. It also routes agents to MCP resources for full guides, which is a genuine alternative, but gives no explicit when-not conditions or guidance on choosing between this tool and search_docs.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description goes beyond them by disclosing the deliverable contents — backend token examples plus links to exact platform guides — which is meaningful since no output schema exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first; the platform list is slightly redundant with the enum but still aids selection. No filler sentences.

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?

The description explains what the plan contains, which compensates for the missing output schema, but leaves includeUi's behavior unexplained for a two-parameter tool. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only restates the platform enum values and never mentions includeUi or what toggling it does. One of two parameters is effectively undocumented.

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 ("Plan") and resource (a ConvoKit integration) and enumerates the supported platforms, so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_guide or get_code_examples even though it explicitly emits guide links and token examples.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent must infer that this is the entry point for starting an integration, versus get_guide for incremental lookups or get_code_examples for snippets.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful content context (what fields the listing carries, including a snapshot date), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result size for what is presumably a full catalog dump.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and scope come first. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it stops short of being maximally informative.

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 well to enumerate the returned fields (guides, section indexes, URLs, snapshot date) and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the unmentioned `platform` filter and absence of usage/routing guidance leave gaps for a tool sitting among four related siblings.

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 the single `platform` parameter has an enum of seven platforms, yet the description never mentions platform filtering or what it does. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw enum values, leaving a real coverage gap uncompensated.

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 ("List") and resource ("official ConvoKit guides"), plus the payload it returns (section indexes, source URLs, snapshot date). This distinguishes it from get_guide and search_docs by implication (catalog listing vs. retrieval/search), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as search_docs or get_guide, which are the obvious neighbors. An agent must infer that this is the discovery/entry-point tool from the verb "List" alone.

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

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing the sectionIndex handoff to get_guide, telling the agent how results are consumed; it omits pagination/limit semantics.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the search scope and ending with the required follow-up. No filler, every clause carries information.

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 well to explain the sectionIndex return path, and annotations carry the safety profile. But with 0% schema coverage and an undocumented platform enum, the definition leaves the caller without enough detail on how to shape a query.

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% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It says nothing about the 'query' string, the 'limit' default/max, or the 'platform' enum values (javascript, react, vue, etc.), leaving the enum's meaning to inference.

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 (Search) and resource (documentation sections) and enumerates the covered domains (SDK methods, installation, auth, errors, API routes, UI behavior). An agent can distinguish it from list_guides/get_guide without opening any schema.

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?

Names the follow-up action explicitly: 'Use get_guide to read a returned sectionIndex', which routes the agent through the search-then-read workflow. It does not, however, say when to prefer get_code_examples or get_integration_plan over this tool.

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