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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: examples are working TypeScript, each names its member and links the reference page, and examples are tied to the server's API version. 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?

Three short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by result characteristics and version behavior; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description, combined with a rich schema and safety annotations, covers the lookup modes, result content, and version behavior well. It is nearly complete, though the exact response shape and interaction between multiple optional parameters are not fully specified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only general mode framing and version behavior, while the schema already documents path, limit, topic, engine, and version in sufficient detail.

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 that the tool returns working TypeScript examples for a member path, namespace, or topic keywords, and adds detail about result content and linked reference pages. It is specific and useful, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search, fetch, or describe.

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 description clearly indicates when to use the tool: when examples are needed for a member path, a namespace, or a topic given as keywords. It does not provide explicit exclusions or point to alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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