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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds real context beyond the annotations: credit consumption, the meaning of coverage=none (no answer), and an instruction to preserve verified quotes and separate them from inference.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the cost warning and the output-handling rules. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no padding.

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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the non-obvious operational facts (cost, coverage=none semantics, quote fidelity). It stops short of spelling out how to obtain a query-ready pack, which would fully close the loop with the build siblings.

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% for both parameters (pack_id pointing back to list_packs, question with length bounds), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and a precise resource ('best matching locked rules and exact evidence'), plus the qualifier that the pack must be query-ready. This distinguishes it from siblings like start_pack_build, get_pack_build_status, and verify_document without needing to name them.

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 prerequisite that the pack must be 'query-ready' and warns that the call 'costs credits', but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names an alternative tool. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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