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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' hints at a read-only operation, which is a useful hint, but nothing else is revealed: how 'expiring' is determined, what 'scope evidence' means, whether the pack aggregates multiple data sources, or whether any side effects or permissions apply. The behavior beyond the verb hint is opaque.

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 12-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the list of returned content is compactly expressed. It is appropriately brief as prose, even though that brevity sacrifices completeness elsewhere.

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 tool with 6 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, this description is too thin. It doesn't clarify the 'pack' semantics (whether the tool bundles multiple artifacts beyond the three listed items), how the filters shape the result, or when the tool is applicable. The output schema documents the return structure, but key selection and invocation context is still 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% — none of the 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description must compensate for this but explains none of the parameters: what namespace, risk_tier, access_mode, identity_id, workflow_id, or entitlement_id mean, or how they filter the returned data. Only the ID parameter names are self-evident; the rest are ambiguous, and the description adds nothing.

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 ('Return') and names concrete resources: expiring agent entitlement leases, access reviews, and scope evidence. This gives an agent a clear idea of what the tool produces. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from the many similarly themed governance packs among the siblings (e.g., recipes_agentic_assurance_pack, recipes_agentic_readiness_scorecard, recipes_agentic_posture_snapshot), so it falls short of a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to call this tool versus any alternative. There are no use-case conditions, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling tools. Given a large sibling list full of similar 'pack' tools, an agent has no signal to select this one over the others.

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