get_model_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the returned fields and that the operation is a fetch (non-destructive). While it doesn't mention error cases or performance traits, the simplicity of a read operation makes this adequate.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence defines the action and output, the second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema (which likely details return fields), the description covers what the tool returns and when to use it. It does not explain why project_id and model_id are needed, but the parameter names are self-explanatory in context. Overall adequate for a straightforward fetch tool.

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 description only mentions 'by id' hinting at version_id, but does not explain project_id and model_id, which are required. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning to the other two parameters beyond their names.

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 action (Fetch) and the resource (a single model version by id), and lists specific fields returned (status, edaReportStatus, target, timestamps). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool list_model_versions by stating when to prefer this tool over the alternative.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'when you already know the version_id', and implies the alternative (list_model_versions) should be used otherwise. This provides clear decision guidance.

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