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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it discloses the shape of what comes back (ordered build steps a shell-capable agent follows, plus a copy-pasteable request string), which the agent could not know from the annotations.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the two deliverables. It is dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical step enumeration is slightly long but earns its place by telling the agent what to expect.

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 no output schema and only two well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential gap by describing what the tool returns. What is missing is minor: whether the steps are pack-specific or generic, and whether 'language' alters the output.

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 both 'pack' and 'language' are already documented, including the owner/name format and link acceptance. The description only echoes 'pull the pack' and says nothing about how 'language' changes the returned steps, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('How to build a pack: the steps...') and enumerates the content returned: CLI install, pull, per-component build and checks, plus a paste-ready one-line request. This is clearly distinct from the sibling read tools (get_pack, read_pack_file, read_decisions, search_packs), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'How to build a pack' — an agent can infer it is the tool to call when it needs build instructions, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no pointer to the sibling tools that fetch pack contents or decisions instead.

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