get_guide_content

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.