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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely new facts: versions are immutable, and the response includes the version's nodes. It says nothing about behavior when the ID is unknown or missing, or about access scoping with companyId, which is the kind of extra context a lookup tool benefits from.

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 with no filler and no repetition of the name. Its terseness is the source of the gaps elsewhere, but as structure and economy go it is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a nested-object lookup with a required UUID and an optional scoping parameter the description omits too much: what a 'node' is, how nodes relate to the version, and why companyId is optional. An agent could invoke it, but only with guesses about the payload's shape and scoping semantics.

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 baseline 3 applies, but the coverage is thin — both parameters are described only as 'UUID value wrapper', which conveys type but not role. The description does not clarify the relationship between schemaVersionId (required) and the optional companyId, leaving an agent to guess why a company scope is supplied on a version lookup.

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 verb 'Read' and the qualifier 'one immutable version' distinguish it from the list sibling (schema_get_list_schema_versions), but 'version' is left unqualified — the description never says it is a *schema* version, so the resource is only inferable from the tool name. It avoids tautology but stops short of a self-contained statement of purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus schema_get_list_schema_versions, schema_get_schema_definition, or schema_resolve_schema. The single-version-by-ID use case is only implied by 'one … version'; there are no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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