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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the tool surfaces old-client warnings and a seven-day refresh interval and can distinguish known from unknown status based on cached inputs, but it does not describe the response structure or what 'unknown status' means operationally.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary effect and followed by the parameter role. Dense and efficient, though the second sentence is slightly elliptical ('Optional cached client versions and the last successful check timestamp distinguish known and unknown status').

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return content, and it does: live MCP/API versions, old-client warnings, the seven-day discovery refresh interval, and a known/unknown status distinction. That is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret this read-only status tool.

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 coverage is only 33%: cli_version and mcp_version carry only regex patterns with no prose. The description partially compensates by framing them as optional cached client versions and last_checked_at as the last successful check timestamp, and explains their role in distinguishing known vs unknown status, but it never clarifies the expected format or what happens if only one of the cached versions is supplied.

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: check live Summer MCP/API versions, old client warnings, and the seven-day discovery refresh interval. No sibling tool covers version/status checking, so an agent can route here unambiguously.

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 this is a diagnostic/status check used to detect stale clients, but never says when to call it (e.g., at session start, before other Summer calls) or what to do with the result. There are no direct alternatives to disambiguate against, which limits the harm, but guidance is only implied.

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