get_schema_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the operation: it does not explain what a schema version represents, whether 'version' has special semantics, or what happens when a version does not exist. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentence with no filler, so it is structurally concise. However, it mostly echoes the tool name and contributes little substantive information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 simple read operation with fully documented parameters and strong annotations, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks sibling differentiation and return-value context, but the absence of an output schema and the low complexity keep this from being a severe gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents cluster, subject, and version. The description adds no additional parameter meaning. No compensation is needed, but also no extra value is provided.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a specific version of a schema.' It conveys the core function and loosely distinguishes itself from the plural sibling get_schema_versions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like get_schema_by_subject or get_schema_versions.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives no context about selecting it over get_schema_versions or get_schema_by_subject, and it does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. The usage scenario must be inferred entirely from the tool name and parameters.

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