get_package_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that the tool fetches PyPI details and installation instructions, which is a useful behavioral scope but does not go beyond that. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears in the first sentence, and the parameter explanation follows directly. There is no fluff or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter, this description covers all necessary invocation context. An output schema exists, so return-value details are already provided externally, and annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing essential 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the sole parameter. It does so clearly: 'package_name' is the exact PyPI name, with a concrete example 'flet-audio'. This adds meaning far beyond the bare string type in the schema and is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource (PyPI details for a Flet package), and the scope of the result ('current version, and installation instructions'). This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_official_packages or search_flet_ecosystem, which cover broader discovery rather than single-package details.

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 the right usage context: call this for a specific named package, not for browsing or searching. 'The exact name of the package on PyPI' tells an agent when it has sufficient information to invoke it. However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives or when NOT to use this tool, so the guidance is implicit rather than stated.

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