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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: it is a non-executing read ('no plotting occurs'), and it will not fabricate output ('missing links are not invented'). It does not mention permissions or pagination, but those are less critical for a per-module lookup.

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?

Content is front-loaded in two compact clauses covering purpose then caveats. The bilingual duplication doubles the length, but each language version is tight and carries the same substantive constraints, not filler.

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 structure need not be described, and the single required parameter is fully documented in the schema. What remains — that this is a read-only preview and that missing entries are not synthesized — is explicitly covered, which is sufficient for a one-parameter lookup tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single module_id parameter is documented in the schema as the exact id from list_modules. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so the schema does the work — the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource: retrieves configured example image/page links plus a reading guide for a module. The caveats 'no plotting occurs' and 'examples are not results for the user's data' implicitly separate it from draw_plot and get_result, though neither sibling is named outright.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for previewing what a module's output looks like, not for obtaining actual data. There is no explicit 'call this when...' clause and no named alternative to use instead, leaving the choice between get_module_demo and get_result partly to inference.

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