view_lp_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful output details (previewUrl logic, sectionKeys/sectionWordCounts for medium) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or potential errors. The verb 'View' implies safety, but the description stops short of full transparency.

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, directly front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence packs the detail-level behavior efficiently without redundant language. Every phrase 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 no output schema, the description provides a reasonable picture of the return data for full and medium, and the schema's detail parameter covers 'short.' The provenance of versionId is explained in the schema. It doesn't describe error cases or permissions, but for a read view tool with strong schema coverage, this is nearly complete.

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 schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what the detail levels return: 'full' returns previewUrl, 'medium' adds sectionKeys/sectionWordCounts. This gives functional meaning beyond the enum's generic 'verbosity' explanation.

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 opens with 'View a specific LP version,' providing a clear verb+resource pair. It explicitly targets a single version, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_lp_versions, view_lp_draft, and restore_lp_version. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 clearly frames the tool as the go-to for viewing one specific landing page version, and schema field versionId states it should come from list_lp_versions, implying a workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate it from listing or mutating versions.

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