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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does substantive work by enumerating the returned payload (file variants, Composer constraint, resolved applicable versions per distribution, modified files, prerequisites, docs fields, raw patch URL). It stops short of stating that this is a non-mutating lookup or noting auth/rate-limit behavior, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with verb, resource and lookup key before enumerating payload contents. The enumeration is long but each item is informative rather than filler, so it earns its length, though it is dense enough to be slightly unwieldy.

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?

For a single-record lookup with no output schema, the description's field list effectively compensates for the missing return-value documentation. Gaps remain around failure modes (unknown id, version that does not apply) and confirmation that the call is read-only, but the core information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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 id, version (install instructions + bundle URL semantics) and distribution (default resolution rule). The description only echoes the id example, adding no meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') + resource ('Quality Patches Tool patch') + lookup key ('by id', with a concrete example 'ACSD-56760'). The singular 'one ... patch by id' implicitly contrasts with the search-oriented sibling find_patch, but the description never names it, so the sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by id' signals a direct-lookup operation versus a search, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the check_compatibility / find_upstream_fix siblings, and no guidance on error behavior for an unknown id. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer routing.

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