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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description reinforces safety by stating it does not create a checkout or purchase. This adds context beyond the annotations, making the behavioral profile clearer for the agent.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 retrieval tool with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it returns links and does not mutate state. It could mention that the links are publicly accessible, but this is a minor gap given the overall clarity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents both parameters (package_id and currency). The tool description does not add additional meaning or context to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it receives the baseline score.

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 clearly states the tool returns public detail and pricing links for a specific package, explicitly distinguishing from creating a checkout or purchase. The verb 'Return' and resource 'public detail and pricing links' are specific, and it is differentiated from sibling tools like 'list_packages' and 'scan_website.'

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?

The description only mentions what the tool does not do (no purchase), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it vs. sibling tools. For example, it does not suggest using this tool when you need to display or share package links, versus using 'list_packages' to enumerate options.

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