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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the result is Markdown, the examples are curated, and user documents are rejected. 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action and object are front-loaded, followed by a useful exclusion and allowed values.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, this description covers the return type (Markdown), valid IDs, and what inputs are rejected. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 provides no description (0% coverage) and only a pattern regex, so the description must compensate. It does so by naming the concrete valid ID values ('basic, tables or tasks'), giving the agent actionable parameter semantics.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('one curated Markdown example'), and selection mechanism ('by ID'). The singular 'one' and 'curated' differentiate it from list_examples, and the exclusion of user documents separates it from tools like get_docs or get_product_info.

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 implies usage for curated examples only and explicitly states what it does not accept ('Does not accept user documents'), but it does not name alternative sibling tools or give explicit when-to-use-versus-other-tool guidance.

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