app_store_versions__alternative_distribution_package__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' is consistent with these. The description adds the endpoint and resource context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, response format, or rate limits. This is adequate given the annotation coverage but not rich.

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 sentence followed by the endpoint, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 operation with two well-described parameters and read-only annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. However, it does not mention the response structure (no output schema exists) and lacks direct comparison to sibling tools, which would improve completeness. The resource is still unambiguous.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with meaningful descriptions for both parameters (id and include). The tool description itself does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Read'), the resource ('alternative distribution package'), and the parent context ('App Store version'). The endpoint URL further reinforces the precise scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve packages directly or from other related 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?

The description implies the tool is for reading a package associated with a specific App Store version, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly compare it to sibling tools like alternative_distribution_packages__get or provide exclusion criteria for when not to use it.

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