get_package_details

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches details, version, and install instructions, but omits potential behaviors like error handling for invalid packages or network dependency. Adequate for a simple read operation.

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?

Two sentences: first defines purpose and outputs, second documents the parameter. No redundant text, front-loaded with key action. Perfectly concise.

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?

Given low complexity (1 required param), presence of output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and parameter clearly. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or response format, but output schema likely covers return values.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description adds value by specifying 'The exact name of the package on PyPI' with an example, clarifying the required parameter beyond the schema's title alone.

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 verb 'Fetch' with specific outputs 'PyPI details, current version, and installation instructions' for a defined resource 'specific Flet package'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_flet_doc or list_official_packages.

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 for specific known package names (example 'flet-audio'), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use, such as alternatives for unknown packages or search tools like search_flet_ecosystem.

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