get_web_package

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations by explaining the three state values (PROCESSING/READY/ERROR) and their operational meaning. Warns that display_name is derived, not the stored title, and that title changes may appear ineffective until READY. Also documents the required OAuth scope.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into clear sections for the polling state machine, the display_name caveat, and OAuth scope. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the state list is formatted for easy scanning. No fluff.

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 tool with an output schema, this description covers all essential operational context: when to call, what to check, how to interpret states, a known pitfall (display_name vs title), and required scope. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility. It explains the single parameter as 'the obfuscated package id', which is the minimal necessary semantic. No ambiguity remains about what id represents.

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 verb and resource ('Fetch one web package') and immediately adds the distinguishing purpose: checking ingestion state. Clearly differentiates from list_web_packages and create_web_packages via the polling context and state meanings.

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 instructs when to use it: 'after create_web_packages, call this until state stops being PROCESSING.' It also notes the ERROR case that the create call does not report, giving the agent a concrete polling loop and exit condition. This is direct and actionable.

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