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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. "Examples use placeholders and do not execute actions" largely restates that safety profile, though it does usefully clarify the return content is illustrative rather than actionable. No detail on response size, formatting, or what a returned example looks like.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the operation and its non-executing nature are both front-loaded.

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 one-parameter documentation-lookup tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers what it does and that examples are inert. Without an output schema, a brief hint about the returned example structure would make it fully self-contained.

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 single workflow parameter has 100% schema description coverage plus an enum, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax, default, or selection guidance beyond the schema baseline.

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 specific verb ("Return") and resource ("public documentation examples") scoped to NoCapMocap API workflows, and clarifies the nature of the content via "placeholders." It does not explicitly differentiate from the closest sibling, get-api-discovery, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"for selected NoCapMocap API workflows" implies the context but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and never names get-api-discovery or get-generation-capabilities as alternatives. Usage is inferable from the enum of workflows rather than stated.

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