alternative_distribution_package_variants__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds the endpoint and 'by ID' but no further behavioral traits such as error handling or response size implications. The schema's fields parameter description notes the 200 KB concern, but that is not in the main description. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentence that states the action and resource, followed by the endpoint. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every element is useful.

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 operation with complete schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is adequately complete. It names the resource, method, and endpoint. It could optionally mention the relationship to the list call or that fields controls response size, but those are covered in the schema. The tool's simplicity makes a one-line description mostly sufficient.

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 both parameters (id and fields) already described in the schema, including the 'ID from the matching list call' and the 200 KB warning. The main description does not add parameter-specific meaning, and per the rubric, high schema coverage yields a 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 explicitly states 'Read one alternative distribution package variant by ID,' providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also includes the REST endpoint, making the purpose unmistakable. The resource is clearly distinct from sibling get tools like alternative_distribution_package_versions__get.

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 implies usage when you need a single variant by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the corresponding list tool (e.g., alternative_distribution_package_versions__variants__list) or other alternatives. The schema's id parameter mentions 'ID from the matching list call,' but the main description lacks this contextual guidance.

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