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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/destructive/idempotent annotations by specifying that the return value is a JSON string of the exact definition plus a checksum, and that omitting version fetches the latest. This gives a clear behavioral contract.

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 (two sentences) without redundant wording. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds return details and a usage note, making it easy to parse.

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 the output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers what is returned (exact definition as JSON, checksum) and the version behavior. No critical information seems missing for a correct invocation.

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 describes all three parameters, and the description adds essential context: 'by slug or id' clarifies the mutual exclusivity, and 'Omit version to get the latest' explains the special meaning of omitting version. This enriches the raw schema.

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 reads back the full definition of a dynamic endpoint version by slug or id, and explicitly mentions returning the exact authored definition plus checksum. It distinguishes itself from related tools like get_dynamic_endpoint and get_dynamic_endpoint_definition_schema by focusing on version retrieval.

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 provides usage hints such as providing slug or id, and omitting version to get the latest. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_dynamic_endpoint or get_dynamic_endpoint_definition_schema, which could clarify when to choose this tool over them.

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