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

The description adds meaningful transparency beyond the annotations: it notes that pre-acquisition runs are stateless previews funded by Points, that local files remain request-scoped, and that ownership unlocks BYOK/saved growth. This clarifies side effects and data handling without contradicting 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 compact—two sentences—and front-loads the core action. It avoids unnecessary detail, though phrases like 'Points fund a stateless base preview' are slightly dense and could be clearer.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and a complex domain (AI Pack execution, growth, BYOK, local files), the description omits critical operational context such as expected return values, error behavior, cost model details, and how parameters interact. It is too sparse for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 44% (4 of 9 parameters have individual descriptions), and the tool description does not compensate by explaining model, prompt, maxInputTokens, or maxOutputTokens. It touches fundingMode, growthVersion, and attachmentPaths indirectly, but many parameters remain underspecified.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Run') and object ('Tetrees AI Pack'), and the title reinforces this. It distinguishes from the sibling 'run_ai_pack_audition' by focusing on actual execution, though it does not explicitly contrast the two.

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 contexts through 'Before acquisition... preview' and 'Ownership unlocks...' but does not explicitly name alternative tools like run_ai_pack_audition or quote_agent_run. It gives some situational guidance but leaves the decision boundary to inference.

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