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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the trailing 'Read-only' merely restates them. The description does add some value by describing the shape of what is returned (operating modes, parameter defaults and bounds, secret inputs), but discloses no auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior. With annotations covering safety, a 3 fits.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical CLI reference; the reader learns the scope and return contents immediately with no filler. The clause after the colon is dense but informative.

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 read-only single-resource getter with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the result contains (modes, parameters with defaults and bounds, secret inputs), which compensates for the absent output schema. Nothing critical is missing, though provenance of the id is only in the 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% and the single parameter's schema description already documents that the UUID comes from list_service_packages. The description adds no additional semantics about the parameter, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 verb (Read) and a precisely scoped resource (one managed-service package version), plus names the CLI twin `ankra services packages get`. It enumerates the returned contract contents (operating modes, parameters with defaults and bounds, secret inputs). It does not explicitly name the `list_service_packages` sibling, though the 'one' vs list distinction is implicit.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: read one version's contract, presumably after listing. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and no prerequisites such as requiring a UUID obtained elsewhere. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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