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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what the HTML will contain (embedded JSON, source digest, fit report, metadata, x402 receipt). It does not mention side effects or permissions, but with the annotations present, this is sufficient.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that begins with the action verb and lists the output contents. Every phrase earns its place; there is no wasted verbiage or redundancy with the schema.

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?

Given the rich schema and output schema, the description provides an adequate high-level summary. It names the core input/output and the key package elements. It omits some details (e.g., automatic rendering if SVG omitted), but those are captured in the parameter descriptions, so the overall context is complete enough for an agent.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters, including the fallback behavior for rendered_svg. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond referring to 'canonical contract' and 'rendered SVG', which are already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Package') and resource ('canonical contract and rendered SVG') to state exactly what the tool does: produce self-contained HTML. It lists the embedded components (JSON contract, source digest, fit report, metadata, x402 receipt), making the output unmistakable and clearly distinct from sibling tools like render or validate.

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 implies a clear use case: when you have a contract and rendered SVG and want to produce a distributable HTML package. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use render if you need only SVG'), but the verb 'Package' and output specification provide enough context for an agent to select it appropriately.

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