get_product_guide

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns a step-by-step workflow naming which tools to call and in what order (valuable since there is no output schema), but says nothing about permissions, side effects, or whether it inspects the user's property.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, trigger conditions, return payload — all front-loaded with the highest-value information (what it is and when to call it) ahead of the return description. No 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?

For a one-parameter, annotation-free guide tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, invocation triggers, sibling ordering, and return shape. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to know what to expect.

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 100% and the single optional 'scenario' enum is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions the scenario parameter or that the guide content varies by scenario, adding no meaning 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 and resource ('Get the complete guide for making a website visible in AI search engines') and scopes it to the AI-search-visibility domain, which cleanly separates it from siblings like analyze_geo_score and get_geo_fixes. The parenthetical list of engines removes any ambiguity about what 'AI search' means.

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 explicit triggering conditions ('Call this FIRST when the user asks about AI search visibility, GEO optimization, why their site isn't cited by AI...'), including an ordering instruction relative to the sibling tools. It does not state a when-not or name specific alternative tools, so it stops short of the full 5.

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