view_side_page_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('View') and enumerates the exact return structure for each detail level, which adds transparency beyond a generic 'view' statement. It does not cover error handling or permissions, but for a simple read tool, the disclosure is solid.

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 concise and well-structured: the purpose is front-loaded, and the detail variations are compactly listed in a single sentence. Every clause earns its place, avoiding unnecessary fluff while conveying essential information.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, so the description must serve as the de facto output specification. It does this thoroughly by describing the exact shape of full, medium, and short responses. It lacks error handling or authorization details, but for a straightforward view operation, it is sufficiently 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 provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying what each detail level returns for this specific tool (full, medium, short), which goes beyond the generic schema description of the detail enum. This extra context helps agents choose the right verbosity.

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 tool's function: 'View a specific side-page version snapshot.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like view_side_page (current side page) and view_lp_version (landing page version). The inclusion of return formats further clarifies its purpose.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like view_side_page or list_side_page_versions. Usage is implied by the requirement of versionId, but there are no stated exclusions or named alternatives. The detail parameter guidance is present but only covers verbosity levels, not tool selection.

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