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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety properties. It adds useful behavioral context: the tool returns a composition plan (not an execution or purchase) and notes that each capability retains its usage terms.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Each sentence adds distinct information: what is read, what is returned, and the retention of usage terms.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description gives sufficient context about the return type and non-execution nature. The only material gap is not explaining the id parameter or the bundle lookup behavior.

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?

The schema has one required parameter (id) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions reading a bundle but never explains what the id parameter identifies, its expected format, or any constraints beyond what the schema already enforces.

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 resource (bundle) with clear scope: saved, owned, or public bundles with pinned source versions and current member availability. It also distinguishes its output as a composition plan rather than an execution or purchase, which separates it from sibling preparation/execution tools.

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?

The description implies usage by saying it returns a composition plan and not an execution or purchase, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like prepare_daystruct_capabilities or discover_daystruct_capabilities. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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