get_intake_guide

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description is consistent with that (fetching a guide mutates nothing). It adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotation: what the tool returns (questionnaire + build flow) and how it fits the workflow. It stops short of describing format or size of the returned guide.

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 zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the skip conditions follow immediately. Every clause carries actionable 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden and does state what is returned (questionnaire + build flow) and the workflow it drives. Minor gap: it does not clarify the relationship to get_build_guide, a plausible sibling that could be confused with it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is nothing parameter-wise for the description to compensate for, and it correctly implies no input is needed.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get the INTAKE questionnaire + build flow') with a clear temporal scope ('to run BEFORE creating a new site/store/page'). It is distinguishable from build-time siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_build_guide, so differentiation is implicit 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?

Explicitly states when to call it ('at the start of any fresh build'), the exact procedure (ask one short batch, restate plan, get a yes, then build), and the exclusions ('Skip only for tiny edits, data questions, or when the user already gave the brief / says just do it'). This is a textbook when/when-not definition.

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