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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description nevertheless adds genuine context beyond them: versions are immutable, and access is limited to an owned job. It stops short of describing pagination, errors for unowned jobs, or version retention.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is terse to the point that some meaning (version defaulting) must be inferred rather than stated, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is parameter-level detail (including required-vs-optional status of versionNumber) for a two-parameter tool with no schema descriptions; adequate but not sufficient for confident first-call accuracy.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. Its 'latest or requested' phrasing usefully implies versionNumber is optional and defaults to latest, and 'owned job' implies an authorization constraint on jobId. However, the numbering scheme and type expectations (integer vs. decimal) for versionNumber remain undocumented.

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 ('Gets') and resource ('immutable estimate version'), with the scope narrowed to 'one owned job'. It also distinguishes the two retrieval modes (latest vs. a requested version), so it is clearly not the drafting or review siblings, though it names none of them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g. review_estimate_scope or save_estimate_draft). The phrase 'latest or requested' only hints at how to choose a version; it says nothing about when this tool is the right one to call.

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