textokit_sample

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the free-versus-paid distinction and that an extra inputExample is included, which is real behavioral context. It does not say whether the sample returns live or illustrative data, whether calls are capped, or what a caller should expect for a route that doesn't exist, leaving meaningful gaps for a trial tool.

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, front-loaded with the free-sample fact and wasting no words. The phrase 'same schema as the paid output' is slightly compressed and would read better as 'same response shape as the corresponding paid tool'.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place return values can be explained; it gestures at this by referencing the paid output schema plus an inputExample. It omits whether sample data is live or illustrative, which is the one thing an agent most needs to know before relying on the result.

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 100% and the single enum parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description never mentions the route parameter or explains that its enum values mirror the sibling tool names, so it adds nothing beyond the schema.

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?

It states this is a free sample of one route with the same schema as the paid output plus an inputExample, which does separate it from the nineteen paid siblings. But 'sample' is not a concrete verb — it doesn't say whether the tool returns mock data, real data, or a truncated response — so the agent's picture of what comes back stays fuzzy.

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?

'Use it before paying' is an explicit usage condition that routes the agent here instead of the paid route tools. It lacks a when-not clause (e.g. what to do once the caller has paid, or whether samples are rate-limited), but the intended sequencing is clear.

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