Get package

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the composition of the response and references the underlying Packages.get method, but does not disclose edge cases, error behavior, or other traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the scope first, then lists the included content, and ends with a short implementation note. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundant filler.

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 one-parameter read-only getter with comprehensive annotations, the description is mostly complete. It lists the return contents even though there is no output schema, which helps an agent understand what to expect. It does not discuss alternatives or error/not-found behavior, but these are not essential for the basic 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 0%, and the description does not explain package_id or its role beyond the implied 'one package'. The meaning rests entirely on the property name and type constraints in the schema, which is insufficient for a low-coverage tool that should compensate.

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 identifies a single-package retrieval and enumerates what is included (pricing, description, module, configurable option groups, groups). It distinguishes from list_packages by emphasizing 'one package', though it does not explicitly name the sibling or state the action verb directly.

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 context is implied: 'One package in full' suggests this is for fetching full details of a single package, and list_packages is the obvious alternative for multiple packages. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusion criteria, or mention of when to prefer get_package over similar get_* tools.

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