get_golden_loop_declaration_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the useful context that the target declaration is immutable and exactly addressable, but it does not add rich behavioral detail beyond what annotations and the output schema already imply.

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 a single sentence with no filler. 'Exact' and 'immutable' are meaningful qualifiers that are front-loaded, making the operation's nature immediately clear.

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?

The presence of an output schema and comprehensive safety annotations reduces the need for return-value or side-effect disclosure. However, the description does not explain the golden-loop declaration concept or how this tool relates to the many sibling golden-loop/catalog tools, so an agent is left to infer enough domain context.

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 compensate, but it only weakly relates declaration_version_id to a containing catalog_version_id. It does not explain company_ref, project_ref, or the expected format/meaning of the IDs beyond what their titles already suggest.

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 a specific read operation: 'Read one exact immutable declaration through its containing catalog.' It distinguishes this from the sibling get_golden_loop_catalog_version by targeting the declaration rather than the catalog itself, and from registration/certification tools by being a read.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are named. The description implies a point-read use case but leaves it to the agent to infer that this is for fetching one specific declaration version rather than listing or catalog-level operations.

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