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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds qualitative details about the output ('small, valid worked example') and the bot type scope, which is useful but not extensive. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One succinct sentence communicates the action, resource, qualifiers, and intended use without any filler. Information is front-loaded and every word contributes.

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 simple read-only tool with one enum parameter and no nested objects, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns and why. It could be more explicit about the exact response format, but with annotations covering safety and the description covering purpose, nothing critical 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 schema covers the single parameter botType fully, including an enum and a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information, but with 100% schema coverage 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and a specific resource 'example script for a bot type', and adds the purpose 'as a starting point'. It is clearly not the same as get_script, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from; the word 'example' signals the distinction.

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 'to use as a starting point' implies the tool is meant for bootstrapping new scripts, which is a usage context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like get_script or get_scripting_api, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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