alternative_distribution_package_deltas__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'Read' verb is consistent with these. It adds the endpoint URL as context but does not disclose additional behavioral details like authentication or rate limits. This meets the lower bar due to annotations but adds limited extra value.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence. It states the action, resource, and access method without any filler. The endpoint path is provided in brackets, adding useful technical reference without extra verbosity.

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 simple read-by-ID tool with strong annotations and schema, the description is adequate. It lacks an output schema but the fields parameter controls the response shape. The endpoint path and ID source guidance make this sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, with helpful descriptions for both parameters. The id description explains where to obtain it ('ID from the matching list call'), and the fields parameter explains its purpose and size implications. The tool description itself adds no parameter details, but the schema carries the weight, so baseline 3 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 uses specific verb 'Read' with resource 'alternative distribution package delta' and specifies access by ID. It clearly distinguishes from the list operation (alternative_distribution_package_versions__deltas__list) by focusing on a single entity. Including the endpoint path adds clarity.

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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving a single delta when you have its ID. It provides context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. However, given the sibling list tool, the usage context is reasonably clear.

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