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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return contents (status, runs, report link), but it does not disclose details like whether the report link is only present after delivery or how status values are represented. This is acceptable given the annotations.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action ('Read an analytics package back') and then lists the key return elements. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 simple read tool with one parameter, strong safety annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential return values. It could be slightly more explicit about the package_id parameter mapping, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter package_id. The description names the resource ('an analytics package') but does not explicitly state that package_id identifies which package to read. However, with only one required parameter and a clear resource name, the meaning is easily inferred. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read') and resource ('an analytics package'), and clearly enumerates what is returned: status, every run under it, and the report link once delivered. This distinguishes it from siblings like rerun_package (which mutates) and build_status (which likely reports a different build/package status).

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 a read-only status-checking use case, and the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations reinforce that it is safe to call for checking package status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of siblings like rerun_package and order_analytics_package makes the intended use reasonably clear.

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