package_show

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get metadata'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what metadata is returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get metadata about one specific package'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what metadata is returned, error handling, or usage context relative to siblings. Given the complexity of interacting with packages/datasets, more detail would help an agent use this tool effectively.

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 description implies a single parameter (the package ID) by mentioning 'one specific package', but doesn't explain what format the ID should be (e.g., string, numeric) or where to find it. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only documents the parameter name and type, so the description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the structured data.

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 action ('Get metadata') and target resource ('one specific package (dataset)'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'package_list' or 'package_search', which likely retrieve multiple packages or search across packages rather than a single specific one.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'package_list' (for listing multiple packages) or 'package_search' (for searching packages). It mentions 'one specific package' but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., needing a package ID) or exclusions (e.g., not for bulk operations).

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