get_sample

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by revealing that this is a cost-free sample served by the same handlers as paid tools, guaranteeing it returns real (not mocked) data, and that each response includes its price. This enriches the agent's understanding of behavior.

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 sentences, each carrying weight: it starts with the free/no-key advantage, explains what is returned (including pricing), and ends with routing guidance. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool's role as a sample that aggregates three other tools' outputs, the description covers what is returned, why it can be trusted (same handlers), and how it relates to a sibling. An output schema exists, so there is no need to spell out the return structure. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters in the schema, so schema coverage is effectively 100% (nothing to omit). The description clarifies that the tool uses a fixed token and returns specific outputs, which is more relevant than parameter details. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately compensates by describing the output semantics.

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 states precisely what the tool does: it returns the complete responses of check_token, inspect_token, and token_identity for one fixed token, along with pricing for each. This is a specific verb-resource combination and clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_coverage, which is about freshness rather than depth.

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 explicitly says 'Use get_coverage for freshness, this for depth,' providing direct guidance on when to choose this tool over an alternative. It also notes that it is free and requires no key, indicating a low-friction use case for testing or exploration.

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