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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe read profile, and the description adds context by saying it returns fenced code examples with parsed metadata. It still omits behavioral details like pagination/limit behavior and whether the optional filters narrow results, so it adds some value but not rich disclosure.

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 sentence with zero waste, front-loading the resource and the metadata it returns. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

With 8 optional filters, an output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It says what is returned but not how the filtering parameters interact or when this tool is preferred over the other docs retrieval tools.

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?

All 8 parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries full burden. It mentions framework, packageManager, and runnable only as returned metadata, which does not explain whether those are also filter parameters, and leaves path, query, limit, locale, and language entirely undocumented.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Return fenced code examples from the docs,' plus the metadata it exposes. It does not, however, differentiate this retrieval from siblings like search_docs, list_docs, or read_page, so it stays at clear-but-ungrounded.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as search_docs or read_page. The tool's purpose implies its use, but nothing explicit tells an agent when to pick it over sibling retrieval tools.

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