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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating the specific categories of data returned, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 and then clearly lists the returned components. There is no filler or repetition of information already present in 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names three categories of returned information, which gives an agent a concrete sense of the tool's output. It could go slightly further by noting that no run is executed, but the 'before a run' phrasing already implies that.

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% and the productId parameter is already documented as 'Tetrees AI Pack product id.' The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond implying the productId identifies the Pack being inspected, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline of 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 ('Return') and names a precise resource: the Pack-declared hosted skills, ephemeral attachment policy, and user-controlled MCP/API extensions. It also positions the operation temporally ('before a run'), distinguishing it from report or audit siblings.

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 clearly indicates the timing for use ('before a run'), giving an agent a clear contextual trigger. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'before a run' qualifier provides enough usage context.

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