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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that examples 'pass validation', implying a quality guarantee, but does not describe return format, pagination, or any side effects. For a read-only example fetcher, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the tool is simple with one fully documented parameter. The description explains what to get and why, and the schema explains the type parameter in enough detail. There is a minor gap in not explaining what the returned examples look like or how to use them beyond 'study these', but for a simple retrieval tool this is sufficient.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter 'type', including a detailed description of each enum value. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves complete working examples that pass validation, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling getter tools like ateam_get_solution or ateam_get_spec, but the focus on 'examples' is a distinct enough purpose that an agent would understand what it does.

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 phrase 'Study these before building your own' gives clear context for when to use this tool (before building anything else). It does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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