Get model version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's field list (status, edaReportStatus, target, timestamps) largely duplicates the existing output schema, so it adds little behavioral context beyond what annotations and the output schema already provide.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the disambiguation clause last. Every sentence 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?

For a simple read-only getter with rich annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers selection and scope adequately. The only gap is the unexplained parent-identifier semantics, which the schema does not supply either.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, yet it only names version_id (and only in the usage sentence). The parent identifiers project_id and model_id are never explained; an agent must infer the id hierarchy from the tool name. Partial compensation only.

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 a single model version by id') and even enumerates the payload fields (status, edaReportStatus, target, timestamps). It explicitly contrasts itself with list_model_versions, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

'Prefer this over list_model_versions when you already know the version_id' names the alternative and the exact condition that selects it. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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