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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context (idempotency, reads current server state, no fact manufacturing), but the 'confirmation boundary' sentence lists mutation-flavored items ('reversible save', 'link preparation') that read as template bleed-over and muddle rather than clarify a read tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the labeled sections give structure, but the 'confirmation boundary' clause is bloated with items unrelated to a read operation and dilutes the signal. A shorter, read-specific statement would serve better.

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 annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description need only convey scope and preconditions. It conveys scope adequately ('one package plus per-action status') but leaves the prerequisite reference unresolved and the _corply_context parameter undocumented.

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% and the description mentions no parameters at all. companyId and packageId are self-evident UUID names, but the nested _corply_context object (with id/receipt dependentRequired) is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 and resource: 'Read one package and the independent status of each staged or created action.' The singular 'one package' implicitly contrasts with list_linked_packages, though the sibling is never named, so differentiation is only partial.

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 prerequisite sentence points to 'every prerequisite stated above' without actually stating any, which is a dangling reference rather than guidance. No condition distinguishes this from list_linked_packages or continue_linked_package.

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