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. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by explaining that omitting version returns the draft config, which clarifies default behavior. No contradictions exist.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose, then immediately provides the critical discovery pointer. Every word 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 read-only, idempotent get operation with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description covers the essential usage context: what it returns, how version selection works, and how to find IDs. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters with meaningful descriptions and an enum for environment. The description adds the high-level distinction between draft config and version-specific config, but no additional parameter-level semantics beyond that. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get an extractor with its draft config, or one specific version's config via version'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_extract_run and list_extractors by naming the discovery tool and focusing on extractor config retrieval. The versioning nuance is explicit and immediately meaningful.

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 explicitly routes the agent to list_extractors for finding IDs, giving clear guidance for a key prerequisite. However, it does not mention list_extractor_versions as the way to discover available version IDs, even though the version parameter accepts version IDs. This is a minor gap in when-to-use guidance for the version-specific use case.

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