Get Example Query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying exactly what the tool fetches (SPARQL text, description, keywords, federated endpoints) and revealing that `_meta.next_commands` offers a follow-up action to run the query. No contradictory information.

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 two sentences long with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose and return fields; the second sentence provides usage instructions and a hint about next steps. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter), rich annotations covering safety, and the presence of an output schema (so return format need not be described), the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, how to get the ID, and a natural next step via _meta.next_commands.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, but the description adds the critical guidance that the example_id should be a full IRI from search_example_queries, which is not in the schema description. This helps the agent understand how to obtain a valid value.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'one curated example's full SPARQL text, description, keyword tags, and any federated endpoints.' It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_example_queries' by stating that an example_id must come from that tool.

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 instructs to pass an example_id from search_example_queries and mentions that `_meta.next_commands` offers an alternative to run it via run_sparql_query. This provides clear context for when to use the tool and a hint about an alternative, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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