alternative_distribution_package_versions_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 burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it offers nothing. It does not mention authentication requirements, pagination/sparse-field behavior, or what the call returns. The bare URL path is not behavioral context.

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 parenthetical repeats the identical string with zero added information, which is pure noise rather than concise front-loading. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficiency.

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 an 8-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the resource and how the include/fields/limit parameters shape the response. None of that is present.

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%, so all 8 parameters (id, include, limit_deltas, limit_variants, and the fields_* selectors) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing, but the high coverage establishes the baseline of 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 essentially the tool name re-expressed as a REST path, duplicated verbatim in parentheses. It conveys only that this is a GET by id, which the name 'get_instance' already implies, and gives no explanation of what an alternative distribution package version actually is or how it differs from sibling resources.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the many sibling retrieval tools (e.g. alternative_distribution_package_versions_variants_get_to_many_related, alternative_distribution_packages_versions_get_to_many_related). No prerequisites or context are stated.

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