howto_compose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the load. It does disclose the return nature (a step-by-step procedural guide), which tells the agent this is a retrieval-style read, but it says nothing about permissions, whether topics are case-sensitive, or behavior when a topic is unknown.

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 with a compact parenthetical enumeration; no wasted framing. The list overlaps the schema description, costing a little signal but remaining efficient.

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-param, no-output-schema retrieval tool, the description is nearly sufficient: the agent knows it gets a step-by-step guide on a named topic. Minor gaps are the absence of fallback behavior for unrecognized topics and any pointer to list_howtos for discovery.

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 param's description already lists the valid guide ids. The description's parenthetical topic list largely duplicates that, adding no new syntax or matching-rule detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (step-by-step guide for composing ERN 3.8.2 content) and enumerates the covered topics, so an agent knows what it retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling list_howtos, so the reader must infer that this fetches one guide rather than enumerating them.

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?

Usage is only implied: call it when you need a procedural guide identified by topic. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no mention of the obvious alternative list_howtos for discovering which guides exist.

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