Prepare a Decision Pack for human review

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: what the tool returns (manifest with SHA-256 digests, integrity-check result, reference-only handoff), that include_documents expands the payload, and that document output is capped. It does not contradict the annotations; idempotence is even reinforced by this framing, though not stated outright.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the distinguishing scope clause is placed at the end for emphasis. Tight and purposeful, though the document-inclusion detail slightly duplicates the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description helpfully summarizes the manifest + integrity-check + handoff shape. All 4 params are covered by the schema. The main gap is the absence of routing guidance against siblings, which a complete definition of this pipeline entry point should include.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, including the 1 MB CSV cap and the ISO 8601 format expectation. The description adds only the include_documents behavior, which is already in the schema's property description, so it adds no meaning beyond structured fields. Baseline 3.

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 verb and a distinctive resource ('Run the toolkit pipeline and return the Decision Pack manifest'), and the closing line 'The pack prepares a decision; it is not the decision' establishes a purpose scope that clearly separates it from validate_passport and check_inventory.

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 implies usage ('prepare a decision for human review') but never states when to use this tool versus check_inventory or validate_passport, nor any prerequisites such as first validating the inventory CSV.

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