alternative_distribution_package_deltas_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the call is read-only (implied only by the 'GET' token), nor auth requirements, rate limits, or what the returned delta payload contains. A bare route string is inadequate for a mutation-free but undocumented endpoint.

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 short, but the only content is the same route repeated twice with no added information, so no sentence earns its place. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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-resource GET with a fully documented two-parameter schema, the structured fields cover invocation, but the description supplies no domain context about what an alternative distribution package delta is or how it relates to the sibling version/package tools, leaving the agent unable to distinguish it from adjacent endpoints.

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 100% — the 'id' parameter is documented as 'the id of the requested resource' and the sparse-fieldset parameter lists its enum values — so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing beyond the path template, but the baseline for fully documented schemas is 3.

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 is only the raw HTTP route 'GET /v1/alternativeDistributionPackageDeltas/{id}', duplicated in parentheses. It restates the operation already encoded in the tool name (get_instance) and gives no plain-language statement of what an alternative distribution package delta is or what retrieving one yields.

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 guidance at all about when to use this tool versus the many sibling relationship tools (e.g. alternative_distribution_package_versions_deltas_get_to_many_relationship) or the other alternative_distribution_package_* getters. Nothing indicates prerequisites or context.

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