get_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail, that the assigned build can be included in the read, but says nothing about permissions, errors, or what happens if the version has no build.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is right for a simple read tool. The second clause is the weak point: it is compact but describes an option that is not in the schema, so the brevity hides a mismatch rather than resolving it.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description should at minimum identify what versionId is and roughly what comes back. Neither is present, and the only distinguishing detail it offers (including the build) is unbacked by the schema.

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% and the single parameter versionId (maxLength 200) is never explained, so the agent cannot tell whether it takes an opaque ID or something like '1.2.0'. Worse, the claimed optional build inclusion has no corresponding parameter in the schema, so the description points at a capability the input schema does not expose.

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: 'Read an App Store version'. That is enough to separate it from list_versions (plural listing) and get_build (different resource) without opening either schema. It stops short of a 5 because it never says what a 'version' is keyed by, an ID or a version string.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The agent is left to infer that list_versions is for discovery and this tool for fetching one already-known version, and nothing tells it how this differs from get_build for the build relationship.

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