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

The description confirms the read-only nature by saying 'Read back' and 'Returns', consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds details about returning the authored JSON string and checksum, providing transparency beyond the 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, starting with the primary action and then providing key details and the comparison with get_app. No redundant information, well-organized.

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 that there is no output schema, the description explains what is returned: the exact definition body as a JSON string and checksum. It also indicates the editing view and the alternative, making it complete for an agent's decision.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema already cover the meaning and optionality of slug, app_id, and version. The tool description does not add new information about parameters, so it relies on the schema's coverage.

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 'Read back the full stored definition of an app version by slug or id' and explains the return value, distinguishing it from get_app. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly contrasts with get_app: 'This is the EDITING view; get_app returns the typed published manifest for reading.' It also instructs on omitting version to get the latest, guiding when to use this tool.

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