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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' phrase in the description repeats structured data and earns no credit. The description does add useful context by disclosing what the generated pack contains and that a link is returned, but it omits generation cost/latency, any authorization requirements, and failure behavior for an invalid ref.

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 dense sentence leads with the action and then lists the pack contents, with the return value and read-only status trailing. It is front-loaded and waste-free, though the jurisdictional enumeration makes it long and slightly list-heavy.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: input forms, the artifact produced, and that a link is returned. Missing are error handling for an invalid ref and any note on generation time or cost, which are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 single 'ref' property is completely undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the full burden. It compensates well by enumerating the accepted reference forms (record code, chain block number, notarised SHA-256), which is exactly what an agent needs to supply a valid value. It could still specify format or validation rules more precisely.

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 and resource ('Produces a printable Court Pack for a sebbi fact') and enumerates the artifacts it contains, so an agent knows exactly what it generates. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-named siblings such as sebbi_check_pack, sebbi_pack_reference, sebbi_list_packs or sebbi_publish_pack, leaving some ambiguity an agent must resolve.

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 implied rather than stated: the mention of acceptable references ('any record code, chain block number or notarised SHA-256') tells the agent when it has a valid input, which is genuinely helpful. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over sebbi_check_pack or sebbi_publish_pack, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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