read_guide

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by warning that the server has no real-time data and that the guide lists official sources to direct users to. This helps agents avoid incorrectly expecting live data.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the two following sentences provide high-value routing guidance that directly helps correct invocation.

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 one-parameter tool with a fully described enum, output schema, and safety annotations, the description is complete. It covers the primary caveat (no real-time data) and tells agents how to handle common unsure/current-conditions requests.

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 single 'topic' parameter has a self-explanatory enum with descriptions. The description reinforces the real_time_sources topic in its usage guidance but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Read one of the server's guides (Markdown).' This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling data-access tools like query_dataset or hazards_at_location, since this is the only guide-reading tool.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call 'about' first if unsure what the server can do, and call 'real_time_sources' whenever current conditions are requested. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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