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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context by specifying the default semantics (empty features = no filter, empty status = passing only). It does not disclose ordering, result limits, or pagination, which keeps it below a 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core filtering scope front-loaded and each parameter's semantics appended compactly. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 three-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition documents two of three parameters well but leaves forVersion undefined and says nothing about what a returned example looks like or how many are returned. The defaults for features and status are the strongest part; the version concept remains underspecified.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it defines the features syntax (comma-separated tags with an example) and enumerates the status values plus their empty-string default. The gap is forVersion / for_version, whose accepted format and meaning are never explained.

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 verb and resource ("Filter examples that pass under for_version") and scopes the result set, which is enough to distinguish it from single-item siblings like example_get. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with example_for_concept, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by the filtering language rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the bulk/enumerating tool, but there is no explicit "use this when.../not when..." and no mention of when to prefer a sibling such as example_for_concept. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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