get_guidance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured or raw data, or includes pagination. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details (guidance commitments and outcomes). There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context.

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?

Given one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a simple lookup tool. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., data format, error handling) and return values, leaving the agent to guess. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, with the single parameter 'company_id' documented in the schema as 'Company ID from search_companies'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 the verb 'get' and the resource 'management guidance tracker for a company', specifying it includes 'prior guidance commitments and actual outcomes (beat/miss/in-line)'. This distinguishes it from general company tools like get_company or get_financials by focusing on management guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential siblings like get_management_statements, which might cover similar ground.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a company_id from search_companies), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like get_management_statements or get_company_narrative. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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