Read a package's EML metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: text is truncated at max_text_chars and lists are returned capped with totals, which tells an agent the payload may be lossy. Auth requirements and error behavior remain unstated.

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 sentences plus a short routing clause, front-loading what the tool returns before the parameter and follow-up guidance. The section enumeration is long but directly useful; there is essentially no filler.

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-shape exposition is not required, and the description still sketches the sections usefully. Combined with the truncation/capping note and the sibling handoff, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only permission/error context is 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 100%, so include, package, revision and max_text_chars are fully documented in the schema itself, making 3 the baseline. The description largely restates the section list and truncation rule rather than adding new syntax or format guidance for the parameters.

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 package's EML) and its projection into named sections (overview, people, coverage, methods, rights, project, entities), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate itself from the closest sibling edi_get_package, leaving some ambiguity about which retrieval tool to pick.

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?

Gives concrete usage for the include parameter ('Choose sections with include') and an explicit next-step handoff ('call edi_list_entities for column definitions, units and codes'). It stops short of stating when to prefer this over edi_get_package or edi_search_packages.

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