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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, lowering the bar. The description adds genuine context beyond that: 'Free discovery' signals no cost, and it discloses what the agent will gain (time shape, coverage limits, paste-ready first query), which frames it as a safe prerequisite step. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no waste. The scoping phrase 'Free discovery' is front-loaded, followed by the return payload, then the actionable prerequisite guidance. Every clause earns its place and the structure aids a quick scan.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return contents (metadata, coverage, freshness, canonical tool guidance, first-query examples). For a single-parameter, read-only discovery tool this is complete — an agent knows exactly what it will receive and when to call it.

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% — pack_id is fully documented ('Pack identifier from get_catalog'). Per the rubric, this warrants a baseline 3. The description references 'one pack' consistent with the single parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 verb and resource: 'Returns detailed metadata, coverage, freshness, preferred canonical tool guidance, and first-query examples for one pack.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings — get_catalog enumerates packs, query_dataset runs queries, while get_pack fetches metadata for a single pack, reinforced by 'preferred canonical tool guidance' which no sibling mentions.

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?

It gives explicit timing guidance: 'Call this before querying a new pack so you can see time shape, coverage limits, and the paste-ready first query.' This tells the agent when to invoke it in a workflow. It lacks an explicit exclusion naming a specific alternative, but the prerequisite framing is clear enough to route correctly.

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