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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that, adding value by specifying the exact kind of information returned. It discloses the behavioral purpose ('free discovery') and the intended workflow, which goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's value proposition ('Free discovery') and a specific list of returns, followed by a concrete usage directive. No wasted words or redundant explanations.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description fully enumerates what the agent will receive and why it matters. With only one parameter and a read-only annotation, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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% for the single parameter pack_id, and the schema already explains its provenance (from get_catalog). The description adds no extra detail about the parameter itself, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states a specific action: returns detailed metadata for a single pack, enumerating exactly what it provides (metadata, coverage, freshness, canonical tool guidance, first-query examples). It also frames the tool as a discovery step before querying, which distinguishes it from query-oriented siblings like search_disaster_links.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Call this before querying a new pack' with rationale (see time shape, coverage limits, paste-ready first query). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies it is a preliminary discovery call rather than a data extraction one.

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