examples

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

The annotations readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already cover safety. However, the description says 'examples + metadata' while the input schema's `detail`, `as_handle`, and `result_id` descriptions describe point estimates, coefficient tables, cached fitted results, and chaining to later calls. The description does not address this apparent mismatch, leaving an agent with potentially wrong expectations about executing functions with `data_path` or caching with `as_handle`.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and object, and every phrase adds useful information.

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 tool whose schema accepts `data_path`, `as_handle`, `result_id`, `data_columns`, and `data_sample_n`, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not clarify whether these parameters tailor the example code or actually execute the function, and the schema's parameter descriptions conflict with the 'code examples' framing. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the core behavioral ambiguity remains.

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%, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden, and it does so in detail: canonical name normalization, token budgets for each detail level, supported data formats, and handle chaining. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and object: 'Return runnable code examples + registry metadata for a function.' This clearly communicates the tool's core purpose and distinguishes it from estimation tools. It does not explicitly contrast with a sibling tool, but the meaning is unambiguous.

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 guidance about when to use `examples` versus the many sibling tools, such as `bibtex`, `available_methods`, or `brief`. The only usage-like information is buried in the `detail` enum description, and that concerns output depth rather than tool selection.

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