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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes non-mutating behavior, and the description adds useful context about using includeUsedBy before deletion and its project-scope-only restriction. It does not contradict the annotation, though it does not explicitly restate the read-only nature.

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 information-dense, with no filler. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of useful information: what is returned, the scope options, the includeUsedBy behavior, and when to use the alternative 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently describes the returned content (full JSON Schema, rowVersion, optionally linked specs). It also provides appropriate alternative guidance and usage context, making the tool understandable for an agent.

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?

The schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions, and the tool description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, especially the workflow implication of includeUsedBy and the project-scope restriction.

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 states the tool retrieves a single shared schema with its full JSON Schema and rowVersion, and distinguishes it from browsing via list_shared_schemas. The verb 'Get' and resource identification are precise and specific.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool when the schema ID is already known and to use list_shared_schemas for browsing. It also explains the practical purpose of includeUsedBy before deleting a schema and the project-scope limitation.

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