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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: the sample is free, requires no key, is already on the tool page, and explicitly lists what the paid kit includes that this sample does not. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the core offer, the bug it addresses, and the boundary with the paid kit. Slightly verbose in explaining the Stripe webhook nuance, but that detail aids specificity and does not feel bloated.

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 zero-parameter read-only sample retrieval with no output schema, the description fully communicates the nature of the sample, its scope, its limitations, and the fact that it is free. The return value is obviously a code sample, so nothing an agent needs 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description carries no obligation to explain parameters. It appropriately focuses on the content and limitations of the returned sample rather than input semantics.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Get a free, real code sample from MeterKit' and describes the exact bug fix content. It also distinguishes itself from the paid kit and other MeterKit tools by detailing precisely what this sample is and is not.

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?

Provides clear context on what this tool returns and explicitly separates the free sample from the paid kit, which helps an agent decide whether this is sufficient. It does not name sibling sample tools, but the distinction between free sample and paid kit strongly implies when to use this.

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