ispw_get_package

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context about the returned details and error behavior, but does not discuss authorization, rate limits, or other operational constraints.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then uses structured Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It is somewhat verbose and repeats the retrieval idea across the opening sentences, but the example earns its place.

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-only lookup tool, the description plus rich annotations and an output schema provide enough context to call the tool correctly. The main remaining gap is explicit routing guidance versus sibling package tools.

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 reported as 0% at the top level, so the description carries the burden of documenting the nested inputs. It enumerates srid, package_id, and response_format with meanings and the default output format, which is enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve detailed information about a specific ISPW package. It clearly implies differentiation from list-style siblings such as ispw_list_packages by emphasizing a specific package, but it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by 'specific ISPW package' and the example, which suggests retrieving one known package rather than listing packages. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative such as ispw_list_packages.

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