record_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the closed-world read profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: an empty topic returns the list of guides, and it discloses the language coverage (full in en/ru/uk, partial elsewhere). It does not describe the response shape, but an output schema exists.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with an em-dash clause; content is front-loaded with the guide's scope, but the long enumerated list and language tail make it heavier than needed and slightly redundant.

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?

With an output schema documenting returns and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the scope and topic vocabulary an agent needs. The main residual gap is explicit routing guidance relative to sibling research tools.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns more by giving natural-language topic names (parish registers, confession lists, repression files) that bridge to the enum values (metric_book, confession_list, repression), helping the agent map a user's wording to the correct enum. The lang fallback behavior is covered in the schema itself.

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 states it is a guide covering how to read and find specific record types, listing concrete examples (parish registers, revision lists, WWI/WWII records, censuses, evidence evaluation). The intent is clear, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like where_are_records or find_sources, and the phrasing 'a kind of record' is slightly awkward.

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 implied — consult this guide for record-type knowledge — and it notes that omitting the topic returns the list. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus where_are_records, find_sources, or glossary, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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