get_version_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns metadata including format URLs, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or free of side effects, nor does it mention any prerequisites or error behavior. For a simple 'get' tool the implied read-only nature is reasonable, but the lack of explicit disclosure prevents a higher score.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get metadata') and immediately provides specific details about the output. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it returns (metadata and format URLs). It is complete for a simple read operation, though it does not mention any edge cases or additional metadata fields. Given the low complexity, 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 input schema already describes version_id as 'A version_id from a search result or list_versions call', covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no additional information about the parameter or its usage, so it meets the baseline but does not go beyond the schema.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'metadata for a single version', and further specifies the output includes available document formats and URLs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_versions (which lists versions) and get_legislation_text (which gets text), so an agent can readily tell what it does.

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 implies usage: when you need a single version's metadata and format URLs, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. The distinction from siblings is implicit but not spelled out, leaving some inference to the agent.

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