Get Guide

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing output shape (markdown with title and source URL), resolution order (slug first, then title), and ambiguity handling (lists matches and asks rather than guessing). These are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then packs behavior, return value, and usage conditions into two compact sentences with no repeated information or 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?

The description covers what the tool returns, how topics are resolved, what happens in ambiguous cases, how to list available content, and why this tool matters relative to schema-based siblings. Combined with the annotations and schema, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coveragecars, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: the topic resolution order, the ambiguity behavior, and the fact that omitting the topic produces a list of all guides. This is valuable, hence above baseline, though not extensive.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read a prose guide page,' and enumerates the contents (filtering syntax, error handling, response formats). It implicitly distinguishes itself from schema-focused sibling tools like get_endpoint and find_field by positioning this as the prose/conventions companion to those structured references.

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 gives clear operational guidance: omit the topic to list available guides, use the app filter when needed, and expect slug-first resolution. It explains when these pages matter ('carry conventions that endpoint schemas assume') but does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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