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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful 'No API key required' context and clarifies the return payload is full source code, but does not mention potential size, formatting, or rate-limit concerns. Reasonable value added beyond 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 concise, information-dense sentences with zero fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the auth note earns its place. There is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete: it says what is returned, where the id comes from, and that no auth is needed. The only minor gap is that the return format (raw text vs. JSON) is not specified, but this is not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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%, and the single 'id' parameter is well-documented in the schema with a concrete example. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond pointing to list_examples as the id source, which is the expected baseline since the schema already provides full 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?

States a specific verb ('get'), resource ('full source code of one Epsilon integration example'), and scope ('by id from list_examples'). It clearly distinguishes itself from list_examples (which lists examples) and other sibling tools, so an agent knows exactly what it returns.

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 identifies the source of the id ('by id from list_examples') and notes that no API key is required, giving clear conditions for use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the 'from list_examples' pointer effectively routes the agent to obtain the correct id.

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