get_reference_examples

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful security constraint — that the retrieved source texts are data, not instructions to be followed (prompt-injection guard) — which annotations do not convey. It says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or how the examples are structured, so it is additive but thin.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the safety caveat. It is efficient, though the brevity comes partly at the cost of missing detail rather than pure economy.

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?

With 0% parameter coverage, no output schema, and an unqualified notion of 'mechanics', the agent lacks what it needs to invoke this confidently or interpret results. The security note is the only substantive addition; pagination semantics and content scope remain undocumented.

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 description coverage is 0%: 'limit' and 'offset' are bare integers with only defaults, no description in either schema or prose. The description does not mention pagination at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap; the agent must guess at maximum limits and whether offset pages through a fixed corpus.

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 verb ('Получить' / get) and a resource ('пояснения механик из базы' / explanations of mechanics from a database), so the general action is clear. However, 'механик' is never qualified — the agent cannot tell what kind of mechanics, what database, or what the returned examples look like, and no sibling is referenced for contrast.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The siblings listed are all publishing/Threads-related, so an agent gets no help deciding whether reference examples are relevant to its task.

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