distribution_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does this well by stating the operation is a read ('Read'), explicitly noting it is 'Free,' and listing the exact response content. It lacks details about error cases or idempotency guarantees, but for a simple get operation this is acceptable disclosure.

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 extremely concise: one sentence establishes the operation and output shape, and a second adds the cost behavior. There is no filler or repetition, and the key verb and resource are front-loaded.

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-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, no annotations, and no nested objects, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the cost implication. The only mild gap is error behavior on a nonexistent id, but the simple shape makes this complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema already fully documents the only parameter, id, and even states that it is returned by distribution_create, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('token distribution'), then enumerates the meaningful fields returned (root, contract, promised total, funded balance, claim URL). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like distribution_create and distribution_proof, since it is explicitly the read operation.

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 makes it clear that the tool is for reading a distribution and mentions the included data, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with distribution_create or distribution_proof, nor does it state conditions such as 'use this when the distribution already exists' or 'use distribution_create first to get an id.' The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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