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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds real value by inventorying the reference's contents, which is the only signal of what an agent will get back given there is no output schema.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste. The content inventory comes first and the actionable directive ('Read before writing a pack') is front-loaded and closing.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is the sole source of information about what this reference contains, and it delivers that along with a usage trigger. It is adequate, though it could note scope limits (e.g., versioning or what the reference does not cover).

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 — there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no schema semantics to add.

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 resource — a reference on how Signal Packs are written — and enumerates the concepts it covers (signals, measurements, flags, operators, verdicts). It implicitly separates itself from the write-side siblings like sebbi_publish_pack, but never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

'Read before writing a pack' gives a concrete trigger condition that tells the agent when to call this rather than proceeding directly to pack authoring. No when-not guidance or named alternatives are given, so it falls short of a 5.

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