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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the answer is 'structured' and 'citable' and grounded in PackIndex data, which is useful return context given there is no output schema, but it does not disclose format, sources, or limits.

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 compact clauses with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. Every phrase carries information.

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?

For a simple two-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and gives a brief return hint, but it omits routing guidance against 26 siblings and any detail on how the answer is produced or bounded.

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 only 50% (currency documented, question limited only by maxLength), and the description never mentions the parameters at all. It does not compensate for the undocumented 'question' constraint or clarify currency behavior beyond what the schema already says.

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 clear verb ('Ask a plain-English question') and the resource domain (packaging costs, indices, or which PACKIQ agent to use), so an agent knows this is a natural-language entry point. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from data-specific siblings like get_prices or get_all_indices, though the routing hint implies its role.

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?

Usage is implied by naming the kinds of questions it accepts (costs, indices, agent selection), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named. With ~26 siblings, a routing statement would have been valuable.

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