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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: samples are static templates, contain only placeholder values like YOUR_ORG_ID and YOUR_API_KEY, and no real credentials are fetched or transmitted.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and key safety detail, and the enumeration of sample types is useful rather than wasteful. The exclusionary routing sentence is also compact and purposeful.

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 do not need explanation, and the annotations cover safety. However, the optional identifier and browse parameters remain unexplained despite being part of the tool's schema, leaving a notable gap for correct invocation.

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 compensate for four undocumented parameters. It explains the default for sample_type and loosely describes sample categories, but it does not explain program_id, workout_id, or browse_tool, nor does it fully map the sample_type enum values to their meanings.

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 a specific verb and resource: returning static copy-paste code templates for workout embeds, program page embeds, custom player JavaScript, and Content API cURL snippets. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools such as get_integration_plan.

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 explicitly says to use this as the primary tool when the user asks for embed code, iframe HTML, or API snippet examples, and explicitly excludes integration strategy or step-by-step plans by directing those requests to get_integration_plan.

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