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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context that only public profiles are returned and that contact details are self-disclosed, which helps the agent set expectations, but it says nothing about result counts, pagination, or auth needs.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return contents following. No filler, no repetition of the tool name beyond what is needed.

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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema present, the description covers purpose and input format adequately. Its description of return fields is mildly redundant given the output schema, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% for the single 'subject' parameter, so the description must compensate — and it does, clarifying that subject accepts a 'name or id'. That is the key ambiguity an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 verb and resource ('Find librarians') with a scoping qualifier ('with a public profile for a subject'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_subjects or search_guides, though it does not name a sibling or contrast with one.

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 'for a subject' framing implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (list_subjects, search_guides) that could confuse an agent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and reach profile is covered. The description adds that the full description and access URL are returned, which is modest extra context, but says nothing about failure behavior when the id 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?

One compact sentence with the verb, scope, and return payload front-loaded; no filler whatsoever.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, and the read-only annotation covers safety. What remains missing is any note on the id format or behavior for a non-existent id, minor gaps for a simple 1-param lookup.

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?

There is a single parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema gives no guidance on the id's format. The description only confirms it is an id-based lookup, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Get one A-Z database by id') and what the response contains ('full description and access URL'). It is clearly a single-item retrieval tool, though it never names search_databases as the contrasting alternative, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 by 'by id' — the agent infers it needs an id and should use this rather than search_databases — but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the search or list siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful shape information about the returned tree (page_id, name, url, box names), but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or failure modes for an unknown guide_id. It adds some value beyond annotations without being rich.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The output shape is stated first and the routing hint is appended last where it is most useful, so every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not restate return values, and it still sketches the outline structure helpfully. Combined with annotations covering the read-only nature, the definition is nearly complete; only the provenance of guide_id remains unaddressed.

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%, so the schema supplies no meaning for guide_id and the description does not explain its format or where to obtain it (e.g., via search_guides). The single identifier is largely self-explanatory in context, which keeps this from being a real failure, but the description 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 verb and resource ('Get a guide's metadata and its full page outline') and then enumerates exactly what the outline contains: a tree of pages with page_id, name, url, and box names. This is concrete enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_guide_content and search_guides without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the closest alternative: 'Use get_guide_content with a page_id to read a page.' That resolves the most likely confusion (metadata/outline vs. page body). It does not, however, say when to prefer this over search_guides or list_subjects, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantive behavior beyond them, namely the default-to-first-page semantics, the output cap via max_chars, and the offset=next_offset continuation pattern. It does not describe error cases or what happens when source=auto falls back, but the added context is solid.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and return format, followed by parameter behavior in priority order (defaults, page selection, pagination). No filler and every clause carries usable information.

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 6-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers defaults, source modes, and pagination adequately, and return-value detail is rightly delegated to the output schema. The only gap is that it never tells the agent where guide_id comes from (search_guides/get_guide).

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: source is enumerated and explained (auto/html/api), page_id, include_subpages, max_chars and offset are all given meaning, and offset's value is tied to the returned next_offset. Only guide_id is left unexplained, though it is the obvious required identifier.

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 verb and resource ('Read a guide page as markdown') plus the return shape ('one entry per content box in display order'), which is far more than a restatement of the name. By naming get_guide as the source of page_id, it implicitly distinguishes content retrieval from guide metadata lookup among its siblings.

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?

Gives concrete selection rules for the optional parameters: page_id for a non-first page, include_subpages=true to expand sub-pages, and source modes auto/html/api. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use this' or a direct comparison against get_guide, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful default-scoping behavior, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size for a list operation.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the resource and scope front-loaded ahead of the default-behavior caveat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description already names the key fields. The only gap is the unexplained non-default branch of the single parameter, which is minor for a simple read-only lister.

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% for the single boolean parameter, so the description must compensate. It explains the default state (with_published_guides effectively true) but never states what the non-default value returns, leaving half the semantics implied.

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 verb (List) and resource (the site's guide subjects) and names the returned fields (id, name, slug). It is distinguishable from siblings like search_guides and get_database, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with 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?

The default filtering behavior ('By default only subjects that have published guides') implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative among the sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the no-query fallback returns an alphabetical listing, and limit is capped at 50, which the agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose followed by filters, fallback behavior, and pagination. No filler; only the offset clause is slightly under-developed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Combined with the parameter explanations, the bounded pagination, and the empty-query behavior, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it correctly; only offset semantics remain thin.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it mostly does: it defines what query searches, names subject and az_type (accepting name or id), and supplies the max-50 limit constraint that the schema's default-20 lacks. offset is mentioned but not explained, leaving a small 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 verb (Search) and resource (the A-Z database list) plus the fields searched (name, alternate names, vendor, description). This clearly separates it from search_guides or list_subjects, though it never explicitly names a sibling.

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?

It implies usage by noting that omitting a query lists databases alphabetically and that subject/az_type are the optional filters, which tells the agent how to get a browse-style result. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over get_database for a single record or list_subjects for discovering filter values.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the dual server/local search path, the silent fallback on server failure, and the returned 'source' indicator. It does not mention rate limits or auth, which are minor gaps for a read search.

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?

Three dense sentences front-loaded with the core action, followed by mechanics and filters; every clause carries information about behavior or parameters. It is slightly crowded but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still notes the 'source' field and that next_offset is null when done, which aids pagination loops. Combined with filter and search-path coverage, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: subject accepts name or id, owner is a public profile name, guide_type gives concrete examples, and limit is capped at max 50 with offset-based pagination. This fully compensates for the undocumented schema.

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 verb and resource ('Search published research guides') with a scope qualifier ('published') that separates it from get_guide/get_guide_content. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so the differentiation is inferred from the search-vs-retrieve naming rather than stated.

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 clearly explains the conditional behavior (query present → server relevance search; absent or failing → local match), which is useful invocation guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like search_databases or get_guide, so usage is implied rather than directed.

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