es_sample_data

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the 100-document limit and implies a read operation ('Get'), but it does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or error behavior. The read-only nature is reasonably inferable, but more detail would improve transparency.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a short summary line, a usage note, and an Args list. Every sentence adds value with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple sampling tool, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, document limit, and parameter semantics. An output schema exists (though not shown), so return values are handled structurally. It lacks error handling or prerequisites, but these are not critical for this tool type.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section fully explains both parameters: 'index: The index name' and 'size: Number of documents to return (1-100, default 10).' It adds the constraint range and default, which the schema lacks. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get sample documents from an Elasticsearch index (up to 100).' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like search_elasticsearch (searching) and es_list_indices (listing indices). The mention of 'download data structure' adds context.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Useful for understanding download data structure before writing queries.' This implies a use case (pre-query exploration) but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use them. It offers guidance without exclusions.

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