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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only... without changing it' largely restates structured data. It adds only the fact that lookup is by numeric generation_id, which is already implied by the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence pairs the trigger condition with the safety note; nothing is wasted. It is slightly list-dense but appropriately sized for a two-parameter read tool.

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 single-record fetch with fully documented params and no output schema, the description covers when to use it and what it returns (markdown, version metadata). Missing pagination/return-structure notes are minor at this complexity.

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 both generation_id and include_source are already documented in the schema, including the 'Call list-generations first' prerequisite. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 (read) plus concrete resources (generated output/result, version metadata, generated markdown), which is materially more informative than the name alone. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest siblings (list-generations, update-generation), so it stops short of a 5.

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 opening 'Use this when the user wants to...' gives clear trigger conditions, including the distinct case of picking a version for later actions. It never names an alternative tool or an exclusion, so it stays below the explicit when/when-not bar of a 5.

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