get_official_package_info

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by stating 'Get information'. It adds valuable behavioral detail by disclosing the dual-mode implementation: 'Uses local zypper if available, otherwise queries the OBS API.' It also hints at return fields (version, dependencies, install size, repository location). No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured: a clear purpose clause, method explanation, usage preference, and a concrete example. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides example return fields ('version, dependencies, install size, and repository location'), which is sufficient for an info tool. It also covers method and selection criteria. Minor gap: no mention of error behavior if package is not found or if both local zypper and OBS API fail, but overall it is complete enough for selection and invocation.

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 100% with a clear description for package_name ('Exact package name'). The description provides an example ('python3') but does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema already states. This matches the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get information about an official SUSE repository package.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like search_obs by emphasizing 'official' vs 'OBS community packages'. The example query further clarifies what the tool does.

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 gives clear guidance to prefer official packages over OBS community packages ('Always prefer official packages over OBS community packages'), which effectively tells the agent when to use this tool over alternatives. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for community packages.

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