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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real content-level disclosure: the response includes what the example demonstrates, the pinned dependency versions, and every source file. It omits any note on payload size or truncation for large examples, which is the only remaining gap.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, the parameter constraint, and the routing rule. Front-loaded with the action and scope, with the disambiguation last where it belongs.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape and does so ('what it demonstrates, the exact versions..., every source file'). For a single-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's instruction to take `name` verbatim from examples://index largely restates the schema's own description, adding a source-of-truth hint but no new semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Read one') and resource ('pmndrs example') plus the exact scope of what is returned: purpose, versions, and every source file. It also names the sibling route (search_docs then get_page_content) for a different question type, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the selection condition ('Reach for an example when the question is how a scene is put together') and the exclusion/alternative ('for what an API takes, search_docs then get_page_content'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered, which is rare.

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