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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by enumerating what the section contains — active JS revision, engine limits, rate limits, per-handler metadata, client log/stack-trace exposure — and notes the significance of scripts for writing protected player data.

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?

Front-loaded with the exact scope constraint ('GET ONLY...'), then context. The scripting explanation is long but informative rather than repetitive; only the closing 'prefer dedicated tools' sentence drifts from the read-only purpose.

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 no output schema, the description usefully describes the shape of the returned data (revision plus execution policy and limits), which is what an agent needs to interpret results. It stops short of mentioning permissions or error behavior, but is otherwise complete for a single-parameter getter.

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?

Only one parameter (title_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail for title_id, making the baseline 3 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?

States a precise verb and scope: 'GET ONLY the CloudCode field of TitlePublicConfigurationModel', which cleanly separates it from save_cloud_code and publish_cloud_code. The agent knows exactly which slice of title configuration this returns.

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 implies read-only usage and warns to 'prefer the dedicated cloud-code tools over editing this section by hand', but that guidance addresses editing rather than when to call this getter versus alternatives like get_title_data. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are given for the read path.

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