Get dataset version

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: qa_status is informational and gates nothing, and a raw version is rejected by submit_training_job, which tells the agent how the returned version_type constrains downstream calls.

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?

Front-loads the action in the first clause, then gives return fields and a short caveat paragraph. Every sentence carries information, though the second paragraph drifts toward submit_training_job's behavior rather than this tool's.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only profile, the description does not need to enumerate return values or safety behavior. What remains missing is any hint about id formats or failure modes when a version does not exist.

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 0% and none of the three required parameters (project_id, dataset_id, version_id) are explained in the description. It only implies that version_id identifies a dataset version; the id formats and the project/dataset/version hierarchy an agent must supply are left entirely to inference.

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 ('Fetch one dataset version by id') and enumerates what the response contains (counts, columnNames, qa_status, version_type). The singular 'one ... by id' implicitly contrasts with list_dataset_versions, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 explains how to interpret two returned fields and notes that version_type only matters when calling submit_training_job with an explicit dataset_version_id, which is useful routing context. However, it never states when to call this tool rather than list_dataset_versions or get_dataset, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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