Start from a library example

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses the return payload (project JSON, adaptation map, contract) and describes behavioral traits like recommending template-render workflow and suggesting alternatives for locked examples. Lacks details on auth or rate limits but adequately transparent for a read operation.

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?

Description is well-structured with front-loaded purpose and subsequent behavioral details. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise; still efficient for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains return components (project JSON, adaptation map, contract) sufficiently. It covers key workflow implications but could detail the exact structure of the adaptation map or contract. Overall complete for a complex tool.

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?

The single 'slug' parameter has 100% schema coverage with a description referencing sibling tools. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states the tool fetches a library example's complete render-ready project JSON plus adaptation map and contract. It distinguishes itself by specifying the premium-quality path and contrasting with alternative workflows, effectively differentiating from sibling tools like get_example_payload.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this premium-quality path versus inline editing or template-render workflow. Mentions that premium examples require a paid plan and that free alternatives are suggested if locked, offering clear context but not naming specific sibling tools.

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