get_example

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and usefully discloses that the example is vendored and makes no engine call. It also describes the returned components, though it does not explicitly label the operation as read-only or mention any access constraints.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before explaining how to use the result. The second sentence is dense but earns its place by giving concrete invocation patterns.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully documented, and the description does explain the main returned fields. Still, it leaves the required name parameter undocumented and does not help an agent decide between this tool and sibling example/preset tools.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter name, and the tool description never explains what the name refers to or what format it expects. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema title.

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 that the tool returns one vendored example, including endpoint, catalog description, reference value, and complete request body. It implies a single-item retrieval, distinguishing it from list_examples, but does not explicitly name or contrast siblings.

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?

It gives concrete post-retrieval usage: feed the output to engine_request(endpoint, body) or pass body["pricing"] as the market for a pricing tool. However, it does not state when to choose get_example over alternatives such as list_examples or get_preset.

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