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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: results are 'limited to the factory view for company callers' (caller-dependent visibility) and signoffs are 'derived' (computed, not stored). It also constrains version to a published version, which the schema does not. No mutation, auth flow, or pagination detail is needed here.

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 English sentence is well front-loaded and earns its place. But the description then repeats the entire content verbatim in Chinese, roughly doubling length without adding information for an agent that already parsed the first version.

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 only two simple parameters, rich read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (pack details, lines, derived signoffs) and the caller-scoped visibility caveat. Only the omitted-version default behavior is left unstated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that version refers to a published version (a constraint absent from the schema's anyOf integer), which is genuinely useful, and implies order_pack_id identifies the pack. However, it gives no format guidance for order_pack_id and no statement of what happens when a version is omitted.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Get order pack'), plus scope detail: fetch by order_pack_id at an optional published version and return pack details, lines, and derived signoffs. Clearly distinct from the plural list_order_packs and write-side siblings like create_order_pack/accept_compliance_quote. It stops short of naming a specific alternative, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Implies the when-to-use (read a single pack, optionally a specific published version), and the singular nature distinguishes it from list_order_packs. But there is no explicit statement of when not to use it, no prerequisite or permission guidance, and no named alternative for edge cases like retrieving unpublished drafts.

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