get_ct_package

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

readOnlyHint already marks this as a safe read, and the description goes well beyond that: it discloses the response shape (package metadata plus codelist index with termCount), the deliberate omission of inline terms, concrete payload size (1106 tables / 13 MB for sdtmct), and the client-timeout risk of raw=true. That is exactly the operational context annotations cannot supply.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the default-vs-raw decision, followed by an example; nothing is filler. The 13 MB figure appears twice (once in the payload explanation, once in the raw warning), which is mild redundancy, though it reinforces the key risk.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the returned sections, mentions hasMore/limit clamping behavior, and warns about the oversized raw mode. For a read-only, 4-parameter tool this leaves no decision-relevant gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning on top: raw is framed by its 13 MB/timeout consequence rather than just 'untrimmed payload', and the package parameter is given concrete naming syntax and a pointer to get_ct_packages. Limit/offset semantics are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable at full coverage.

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 concrete verb and resource: returns package metadata plus a paginated codelist index that includes a termCount per table. It also draws the boundary against two siblings by name, get_ct_packages (for discovering package names) and get_codelist_submission_values (for per-table terms), so an agent can pick the right tool without inspecting schemas.

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?

Explicitly says what happens by default (index only, no inline terms), what raw=true does (pushes the 13 MB payload and will hit a 60s client timeout), and names the alternative tool to use instead. It also routes to get_ct_packages when the package name is unknown, so the when/when-not conditions are all covered.

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