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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real context: required permission (profiles.read), confirmation it is read-only, and what the fetched pin semantically contains (profile id, version id, content digest the package's profiles.customer must carry). No rate limits or failure modes, but this is well above the annotation baseline.

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 dense, front-loaded paragraph with no filler sentences; the operation is stated first and prerequisites/timing follow. It is information-dense rather than bloated, though the parenthetical interpolation slightly interrupts flow.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does: the pin consists of profile id, version id and content digest. Permission requirement and the sequencing relative to publish_service_package are also covered, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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%, so both profile_id and profile_version_id are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description's extra text is about the returned pin's fields (`profile`, `version_id`, `organisation_id`), not the inputs, and referencing an `organisation_id` parameter that does not exist in the schema risks confusing the agent's mapping to the actual inputs.

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+resource: read the 'pin' a managed-service package needs for one version of a stack profile. It also names the sibling it precedes (publish_service_package), which helps discrimination. However, the sentence mixes output concepts (profile/version_id/digest, organisation_id) with the operation itself, which makes the first read slightly harder to parse than a clean verb+resource statement.

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?

Gives explicit timing: 'Use it before publish_service_package', and ties the tool to the corresponding CLI lookup (`ankra services packages init`). No when-not condition or alternative lookup is named, so it stops short of a 5.

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