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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful behavior beyond annotations: 'Keyless' signals no authentication requirement, and 'this pack can reach' sets the resource-scope boundary.

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 clauses each earn their place: the action, the keyless note, and the intended usage relative to md_code_section. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with strong annotations and no output schema, this description is complete enough: it states the resource, the auth posture, the scope boundary, and the workflow relationship to the natural sibling. No required invocation context is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage via the empty example, so there is no parameter-level meaning for the description to add. Per the rubric, zero parameters warrants a baseline 4.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List the Maryland Code articles this pack can reach.' It distinguishes itself from sibling md_code_section by explicitly framing itself as the pre-step when the article name is unknown.

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?

It provides an explicit usage directive: 'Use before md_code_section when you know the subject but not the article name.' This states when to choose this tool and names the relevant alternative, leaving little to inference.

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