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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety of this read-only operation is fully captured. The description adds the useful detail that the response includes rules and fact requirements, extending the tool's behavioral disclosure beyond what the annotation provides. However, it does not describe any other behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, response shape), leaving the description a modest addition.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the action ('Get a single version by ID') and immediately specifies the unique value-add ('including its rules and because requirements'). Every word earns its place; there is no verbosity or repetition.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context about what the response will contain: rules and fact requirements. It does not enumerate every field of a policy version, but it gives enough information for the agent to infer the kind of data returned. Given the simple read-only nature, this is a strong contextual description.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters: groupId is described as 'Policy group ID' and versionId as 'Version ID', covering 100% of the parameters. The description's phrase 'by ID' reinforces that versionId identifies the version, but it does not add new meaning or give examples that go beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline 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 precisely what the tool does: it fetches a single policy version by ID, and specifies that the returned data includes its rules and fact requirements. This verb+resource structure clearly distinguishes it from siblings like lexq_versions_list (which lists versions) and lexq_versions_update (which modifies versions).

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 clearly conveys the intended usage context: use this tool when you have a specific version ID and need that version's full details including rules and fact requirements. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., lexq_versions_list for browsing all versions) or state exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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