alternative_distribution_package_versions__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 description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds the endpoint path and implies a single-resource read, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as rate limits, auth requirements, or pagination. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, but it adds little beyond what is already structured.

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, resource, and endpoint. It contains no redundant filler and is well-structured for quick parsing.

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, the description, combined with the annotated read-only hints and fully documented schema parameters, is complete. No output schema exists, but the resource type and available fields are inferable from the fields parameter enum. The description adequately supports tool selection and invocation.

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%, and the schema already provides rich descriptions for all parameters: id ('ID from the matching list call'), include ('comma-separated list of relationships to include...'), and fields ('Return only these attributes...'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('one alternative distribution package version by ID'). It includes the HTTP method and endpoint path, which unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling listing tools and other getters.

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 the use case: fetch a single version by its ID, with ID typically obtained from a list call (as noted in the schema's id parameter). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'by ID' scope and endpoint path provide clear context for when this tool applies.

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