distributions_get_dist_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the required license and the HTTP endpoint, which are useful preconditions. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention response format, error behavior, rate limits, or side effects. It goes slightly beyond the minimum because of the license and endpoint, but remains incomplete.

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 efficiently structured: a short one-line purpose, a license requirement, the endpoint, and a clear JSON example. It front-loads the core action and avoids unnecessary filler. The example is somewhat lengthy but directly useful, earning a high score without being excessive.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not describe the response structure or what the caller will receive (e.g., a URL string). The request parameters are well covered in the schema, and the example clarifies the request format. However, without any indication of the return format or possible error cases, the description is only partially complete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 input schema itself includes detailed descriptions for both parameters, especially package_type with all valid values. The tool description adds an example request body but does not explain the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Despite the context signal suggesting 0% schema coverage, the actual schema clearly describes both parameters, so the description adds minimal extra semantic value.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the distribution URL for downloading the installation package.' It identifies the specific resource (distribution URL) and action (get), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like distributions_get_status or distributions_get_versions by focusing on the download URL.

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 implies usage by requiring a distribution ID and package type, and it lists required licenses as a precondition. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. The example provides concrete input guidance, but lacks exclusions or situational recommendations.

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