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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already indicates a read-only operation, and the description reinforces this by saying 'read the strategy.' It adds context about the tool's side-effect-free nature (no mention of modifications) and the requirement for project context. No contradictions exist between the description and annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences. The first sentence states the primary function and output scope ('including version aliases'), and the second provides usage guidance and prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no irrelevant information.

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 there is no output schema, the description partially describes the return by mentioning 'versioning strategy' and 'version aliases' but does not specify the exact format or fields. It also omits error conditions or exceptions. However, for a get operation with clear parameter semantics, this is adequate and the 'requires project context' note adds necessary context. Slightly more detail on return structure would make it fully complete, but it's not lacking.

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 fully covers the single parameter specId with a clear description ('Public ID (GUID) of the API specification') and 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any extra semantics about specId itself, only mentioning project context as a prerequisite, which does not directly enhance parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'Get the versioning strategy configured for an API specification, including version aliases.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('versioning strategy'), and distinguishes itself from the many other get_* siblings by focusing on versioning strategy. The mention of 'including version aliases' adds specificity.

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 says 'Use this to read the strategy; to change it use set_versioning_strategy,' which clearly indicates when to use this tool versus the alternative for modifying. It also states a prerequisite: 'Requires project context,' informing the user about necessary setup. This is explicit and actionable.

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