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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine value by describing the shape of the payload (demonstration summary, targeted versions, full source files), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before routing guidance. No filler; each clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return contents, gives the required parameter source, and routes to alternatives. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it 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 description's only mention of `name` ('Take `name` verbatim from the examples://index resource') simply repeats what the schema already says. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 and resource ('Read one pmndrs example in full') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: what it demonstrates, the versions it targets, and every source file. This clearly separates it from get_page_content and search_docs.

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 states when to reach for this tool ('when the question is how a scene is put together') and names the alternatives for a different need ('for what an API takes, search_docs then get_page_content'). Both the when and the when-not are covered with named siblings.

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