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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds a detail not in the structured fields: the body returned is that of the *current* version, which matters for an agent authoring a conforming datafile and hints that historical versions live elsewhere.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and lookup keys, then closes with the motivating use case. No filler, nothing redundant with the schema.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, this is close to sufficient. A minor gap remains around error behavior when the slug is unknown or when both identifiers are passed.

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%, and the schema itself states the 'provide this or schema_id' either/or rule for both parameters. The description's 'by slug or id' merely restates rather than adding format or precedence guidance (e.g., which wins if both are supplied), so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get a single schema'), the lookup keys ('by slug or id'), and the payload ('JSON Schema body of its current version'). The word 'single' plus the authoring intent cleanly separates it from list_schemas and the list_* siblings.

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?

'use it to author a datafile that conforms' gives a concrete when-to-use tied to a downstream task (create_datafile/patch_datafile). It does not name alternatives such as list_schemas or get_schema_version, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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