Example definitions

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read); the description adds the branching behavior (no id = list bundled examples, with id = return that definition) that the annotation does not cover, plus the intended workflow after retrieval. It does not describe auth needs or pagination, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the use case, then the behavioral contract, then the follow-up action. Dense but every clause (examples of patterns, the capabilities contrast, the validate step) earns its place; the multi-clause semicolon sentence is slightly heavy.

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 one-optional-param read tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint, the description covers when to use it, what each invocation mode returns, and the intended next step. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, and return shape is delegated appropriately to the output schema.

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 'id' parameter, including its example value and the omit-to-list semantics, so the schema carries this dimension. The description restates the with/without-id behavior rather than adding new parameter meaning, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 purpose (fetch a bundled example definition to start from or copy) with a clear verb+resource and explicitly contrasts it with the sibling 'capabilities' (lists every option but shows no complete form). An agent can distinguish this tool from its siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Names the trigger condition ('when you need a working form to start from or a pattern to copy, such as multi-step forms, branching routes, conditions or translations') and names the alternative it is not for ('capabilities lists every option but shows no complete form'). It also routes to the correct follow-up sibling, 'validate_definition'.

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