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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: earlier versions are open to the app's editors, while the live link follows the app's access setting. This helps the agent reason about visibility and permissions.

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?

Three purposeful sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by use cases and an important access nuance. 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 read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains that the result includes files and each text file's content, plus access-relevant behavior. It does not detail the exact response structure, but that is not essential for this level of complexity.

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 both parameters are already well documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond saying 'by its number,' which is sufficient given the schema's clarity.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Read one version by its number, with its files and each text file's content.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_app_versions (which lists versions) and read_app_file (which reads a single file).

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?

Gives clear use cases: inspect what an earlier publish contained and copy a file back out of a version. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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