podyx_get_setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does add useful read-side context (independent prices pagination, "Follow all pagination", quote does not reserve a slot or lock a price). However, it is dominated by mutation semantics — Idempotency-Key requirements, "[] clears the submitted collection", archive deactivates, restore reactivates — that do not apply to this GET tool and muddy the behavioral picture. "Read/preview only" avoids a direct contradiction with readOnlyHint, but the surrounding text is misleading about what this specific call does.

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?

It is front-loaded correctly with the verb and endpoint, but the body is a dense run-on mixing catalog semantics, mutation rules, idempotency keys, and archive/restore behavior into a read-only fetch. Several sentences (Omitted links/override sections preserve; [] clears, Mutations require...) do not earn their place for this tool and dilute the two or three facts an agent actually needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears full responsibility for describing returns; it gestures at the payload (JSON normalization, versioning, links, configured prices, lifecycle, drafts) but never says what the response actually contains or how it is shaped. Given a nested path object and zero schema coverage, plus large chunks of irrelevant mutation content, an agent still cannot confidently predict the result.

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 must carry the load. It does explain prices_page/prices_per_page as independently paginating configured prices tied to current service versions, which is genuine added meaning over the bare integer schema. But the required path.id is never explained (setup UUID vs. something else) and the phantom `view` parameter actively misleads.

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?

Opens with a specific verb, resource, and endpoint ("Get catalog setups GET /api/v2/setups/{id}"), and the {id} path signals this is a single-resource fetch rather than a list, distinguishing it from siblings like podyx_list_setup and podyx_v1_list_setups. It stops short of naming those list siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as podyx_list_setup or podyx_get_service. Worse, it instructs on behaviors keyed to a `view=offers` parameter that does not exist in the schema, which could send an agent looking for a query option it cannot pass.

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