get_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Gets' signals a read-only operation and the Returns line says the result is a formatted string, but there is no mention of error behavior, version-existence checks, or any permissions beyond the injected service client.

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 purpose is stated in one opening sentence, followed by a tight Args list and a clear Returns line. It is well-structured with no filler, making it easy to scan.

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 getter with three parameters, it covers the core inputs and return type. However, it lacks any guidance about how the script_id should be obtained, what 'details' includes, or how failures are reported, which is notable because neither annotations nor schema descriptions add context.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It gives one-line explanations for all parameters, but user_google_email and script_id merely restate their names, and only version_number and the injected service description add real context.

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 action ('Gets details') on a specific resource ('a specific version'), and tying it to script_id/version_number makes the target unambiguous. The word 'specific' differentiates it from the sibling list_versions, while 'Gets' differentiates it from create_version.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when' or exclusion, but the description implies this tool is for retrieving one known version by number. An agent could infer the alternative (list_versions for enumeration), but the description does not explicitly name it or say when not to use it.

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