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

Annotations fully cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is low. The description adds the fact that it returns exactly five 'real free proofs' with specific formats, which is useful behavioral context, but it doesn't explain whether the list is static, paginated, or filtered.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the action and output. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more specific without becoming verbose.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but missing key context: what these examples are examples of, whether they change over time, and how they relate to sibling document tools. An agent can call it but may misinterpret the output domain.

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?

There are zero parameters, so per the rubric this is a baseline 4. The description correctly implies no parameters are 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?

The description states the tool lists five real free proofs (Markdown, PDF, ZIP), giving a concrete verb and resource. However, the name 'list_examples' and title 'Examples' don't clarify what domain these examples belong to, and the description doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like get_tender_markdown or list_document_files.

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?

The phrase 'before you generate another document' implies the tool is meant for previewing examples prior to generation, which is a clear timing cue. But there is no explicit statement of when-to-use versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites.

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