Get a Homechecker guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the return-value context (source links, review metadata, method, limitations) which is useful. It doesn't address potential behaviors like slug-not-found errors, but with strong annotations, the added context meets baseline expectations.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the primary purpose, immediately followed by the most critical usage hint (use a slug from sibling tools). It's efficient with no filler, though it could arguably be tightened slightly.

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 three parameters (one required), strong annotations, and clear schema documentation, the description provides adequate context: what's returned, how to source a slug, and the canonical nature of the guide. With no output schema, describing the return contents is helpful. Minor gaps like error handling aren't critical for this simple fetch tool.

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 67%, with slug and sectionIds described in the schema. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the guide contains 'method and limitations' but doesn't elaborate on parameter semantics beyond the schema. The slug example and sectionIds behavior are already documented in the schema, so the description adds limited incremental value—baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Retrieve one canonical Homechecker guide by slug' with a specific verb+resource+method of lookup. It distinguishes itself by noting it retrieves 'source links, review metadata, method and limitations.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from search_guides—though the sibling names imply search vs retrieval, which is somewhat evident.

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 clear guidance to 'Use a slug returned by list_guides or search_guides,' which connects it to sibling tools and provides the correct workflow for obtaining a valid slug. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when build_buyer_checklist is appropriate), but the slug-source guidance is practical and helpful.

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