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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description does add that the payload contains full source plus metadata, which is useful return-shape context absent from the annotations. It says nothing about how an invalid path or unknown version is handled, so it is only modestly additive.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the scope qualifier ('one example by path') is front-loaded. It is a sentence fragment without a verb, which reads as a label more than an instruction, but nothing is wasted.

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 tool with two required, undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should at minimum disambiguate 'forVersion' and describe what the returned source/metadata looks like. It gestures at the return content but leaves the version parameter completely unaddressed, so an agent cannot construct a correct call from the definition alone.

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 0% for two required parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that 'path' identifies the example, but 'forVersion' is never mentioned or explained — whether it is a language/toolchain version, a doc version, or a package version is left entirely to guesswork, and its required status makes that gap consequential.

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 names a concrete resource and scope: full source plus metadata for exactly one example, keyed by path. That is specific enough to distinguish a single-item fetch from list-style siblings, but it offers no explicit contrast with close alternatives such as example_for_concept or examples_list, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing says to prefer this over examples_list when browsing, or over example_for_concept when the concept rather than the path is known, and no prerequisites or failure conditions (e.g. unknown path) are stated.

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