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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds that samples carry a verified flag, which is genuinely useful beyond the annotation, but says nothing about what happens when no sample exists for a language or whether the slug must refer to an existing API.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the usage trigger. No filler, though the trailing verified=true note is slightly tacked on rather than integrated.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description reasonably omits return-value detail, and the read-only annotation covers safety. However, the tool's sole required parameter (slug) is left semantically unexplained, which is a real gap for an agent trying to 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It restates the language enum values (javascript, python, curl) that the schema already declares, and only hints that 'slug' identifies an API — it never explains the slug format, whether language is optional, or the default behavior.

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+resource: it returns ready-to-run example code for calling an API, in one of three languages. This is distinguishable from siblings like get_api (metadata) or search_apis (discovery), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Use when you are about to integrate an API into code" gives a clear triggering context. It does not name alternatives (e.g., use get_api first to find the slug) or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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