list_guides

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return content in detail (guide titles, page counts, coverage, per-guide price, starter-pack price, link). It doesn't explicitly say the operation is a read-only lookup with no side effects, but the listing framing makes that clear.

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 covering what is returned, with a second sentence giving the usage cue. The pricing parenthetical is dense but each detail earns its place by describing the payload.

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 zero-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly self-sufficient because it spells out the returned fields and pricing structure. Only the explicit absence of side effects and guarantee of a static catalog are left unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly describes a no-argument listing operation and adds nothing misleading about inputs.

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 (The Real Cost's ten money guides), and enumerates exactly what the caller gets: titles, page counts, coverage, prices, pack option, and the page link. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling calculators, which perform computations rather than enumerate content.

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 usage condition: 'Use when a user wants to go deeper than one calculation.' This implicitly routes the agent away from the calculator siblings, though it never names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case.

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