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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context beyond that: it reveals that the returned rowVersion is 'needed to edit it', signaling a downstream use case, and mentions the project context requirement. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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. The first sentence front-loads the resource and return fields; the second provides usage guidance and the alternative tool. Every sentence 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 simple 2-parameter read operation, the description covers what the tool returns, when to use it, the alternative, and the prerequisite. Although there is no output schema, the listed fields give the agent a complete mental model of the response.

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 fully documents specId and versionId as GUIDs. The description adds a small contextual hint by saying 'when you already have the version id', but it does not add any new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 one spec version') and enumerates the exact fields returned (status, release notes, alias, timestamps, rowVersion). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_versions, making the tool's purpose unambiguous among many sibling get_* tools.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you already have the version id' and directs the agent to the alternative ('to browse a spec's versions or find an id use list_versions'). It also notes the prerequisite of project context, leaving no ambiguity about invocation conditions.

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