alternative_distribution_package_variants_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it conveys nothing beyond the HTTP verb. It does not state whether the retrieval is read-only, what happens with an invalid id, whether fields filtering is required, or anything about the response shape.

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 single sentence duplicates the same path twice in parentheses, which is pure waste rather than economy. There is no front-loaded purpose statement, just a raw endpoint string.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a terse path-only description, an agent has no information about the resource being fetched or what comes back. For a domain-specific resource like an alternative distribution package variant, this is far below the minimum needed to call it confidently.

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' and 'fields_alternativeDistributionPackageVariants' parameters are both documented in the schema, including the enum of selectable fields. The description adds zero meaning beyond it, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas applies.

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 only restates the tool name and its URL path ('GET /v1/alternativeDistributionPackageVariants/{id}') twice. There is no plain-language statement of what an 'alternative distribution package variant' is or what retrieving one accomplishes, so it is effectively a tautology that an agent cannot distinguish meaningfully from sibling get_instance tools.

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?

No guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the many sibling retrieval tools (e.g. alternative_distribution_package_versions_variants_get_to_many_relationship, alternative_distribution_package_deltas_get_instance). No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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