Get Software Repository package settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's only added behavioral context is the required permission, which is genuinely useful but thin given the tool also supports verbose and extended-fields behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and ending with the permission requirement. The second sentence largely restates the first, which is minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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?

With an output schema present, rich annotations, and full parameter documentation, the description covers what the tool does and the permission needed. An agent could call it correctly; adding sibling differentiation would be the only meaningful improvement.

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%, so all five parameters (fields, org_id, verbose, package_id, response_format) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that the package is identified by ID, adding no syntax or format nuance beyond the structured data; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get ... package settings') and clarifies it operates on a single package identified by ID. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as action1_get_version or action1_list_software_repository, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 ID-based framing implies this is the single-package detail lookup, but the description never says when to prefer it over action1_list_software_repository, action1_get_version, or action1_get_update_package. The permission note (view_software_repository) is the only explicit prerequisite given.

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