business_pack_report

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

The annotations already declare the tool as readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it reports 'expected' items, which is consistent but does not provide additional behavioral insight beyond what annotations convey.

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?

The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, it could be slightly expanded to cover parameters without losing conciseness.

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 three parameters and a complex domain (business pack reporting), the description lacks details about what 'expected' means, how parameters affect output, and any return value semantics. The output schema exists but is not described.

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%, but the description only implicitly references the 'pack' parameter by stating it reports for a business pack. It does not explain the 'instance' or 'use_live_metadata' parameters, leaving significant semantic gaps.

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 clearly states the verb 'Report' and the specific resource 'expected modules, models, and safe discovery calls for a business pack'. This is distinct from sibling tools, none of which mention 'business pack'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fit_gap_report or upgrade_risk_report. The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites for use.

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