Get Agent AVCP report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does add useful traits: the operation is a read ('Read'), the report is buyer-safe, version-bound, and only for published packs. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, failure behavior for unpublished or nonexistent packs, or how the gates/scores are presented, so some behavioral context is still missing.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the object, qualifiers, and scope with no repetition of the tool name or filler. Every phrase adds signal.

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 no output schema, the description names what is returned (AVCP gates and scores) and the relevant constraints (buyer-safe, version-bound, published). It does not cover auth or error cases in detail, but those are minor for a low-complexity read operation.

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 schema fully documents productId as a UUID, and the description adds a meaningful precondition beyond the schema: the productId must identify a published pack. This helps an agent avoid passing draft or unpublished pack IDs even though the parameter description itself does not say so.

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 uses a specific read verb with a well-defined resource: the buyer-safe, version-bound Agent AVCP report for a published pack. The qualifiers 'buyer-safe' and 'published' clearly separate it from the sibling get_ai_pack_private_report without needing to mention it. An agent can identify what this tool returns and for which pack state.

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?

It gives clear selection context: use this when you need the AVCP report that is buyer-safe and version-bound for a pack that is already published. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the published/buyer-safe framing makes the intended use obvious relative to the private report sibling.

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