guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (no mention of freshness, caching, or output detail) but does not contradict them either.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the resource type. Efficient, though a large share of its tokens merely restate the schema enum.

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 present, return values need not be described, and a one-param tool is simple. However, the when-to-use context for this help tool is entirely absent, leaving the agent unclear on how it fits the wider workflow.

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 0% and the single topic parameter is an enum. The description merely repeats the enum values verbatim and adds no meaning about what each topic covers or how 'stage' maps to the workflow, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 type (rules and how-to) scoped to a stage, and enumerates the covered topics. An agent can tell it is a reference/help lookup rather than an action tool, though the name 'guide' alone is vague and the description leans on the enum list.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus the many action siblings (start_search, set_screening_criteria, etc.). It never says to consult the guide before or during a stage, so the agent must infer its role entirely.

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