alternative_distribution_packages_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 does not meet it. The GET verb weakly implies a non-destructive read, but nothing is said about authentication, errors for unknown ids, pagination/relationship expansion behavior, or whether the included relationships affect response size.

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 duplicate of the path is pure waste that earns no place. Nothing is front-loaded except the route string, which the agent already infers from the tool name.

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 five-parameter read with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is inadequate: it never says what resource is returned or that include/fields_* shape the response. The schema covers parameter formats, but the description leaves an agent with no operating context.

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 every one of the five parameters (id, include, limit_versions, and the two field selectors) is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description contributes nothing beyond the route, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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/alternativeDistributionPackages/{id}") repeated twice in parentheses. The tool name already says it is a get-by-id for alternative distribution packages, so the description adds no distinguishing information and is effectively a tautology with an endpoint echo.

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 statement of when to use this tool rather than the many sibling getters (e.g. alternative_distribution_packages_versions_get_to_many_related, alternative_distribution_package_versions_get_instance) or any prerequisite such as needing a valid package id. No when-to-use and no exclusions are given.

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