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

Adds real context beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint: the two auth modes, the builder_profile non_developer variant where KONG.md becomes a single paste-in prompt, and the privacy guarantee that variable values never pass through Kong Reviews. The 'write KONG.md into the project root' instruction is agent-side file I/O, not a contradiction of readOnlyHint.

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?

Front-loaded with what the pack contains (the highest-value information), then invocation, then next actions. Dense but every clause carries content; the long parenthetical service list is the only slightly heavy part.

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?

Output schema covers return values, so the description's job is inputs, auth, and post-call workflow — all present. For a zero-required-parameter read tool it leaves nothing an agent needs to call it or act on the result unresolved.

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 coverage is already 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds the sign-in distinction for share_url vs id and the framework default implied by the builder_profile note. It does not add framework-selection detail (reading package.json), which lives in the schema.

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?

Names a specific resource (the build pack for a planned stack) and enumerates exactly what it contains: decisions with runner-up and cost, ordered setup steps, .env.example variable names, KONG.md, acceptance checklist and cost guardrails. An agent knows precisely what comes back without opening the output schema.

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?

Gives the two invocation paths with their auth conditions (share_url = no sign-in, id from list_saved_stacks = needs sign-in) and states the follow-on workflow: write KONG.md and .env.example to project root, then walk the steps with the user. No explicit when-not or named alternative sibling, so not a 5.

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