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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying exactly what the output covers: token encoding, endpoint structure, module coverage, and known limits. This gives the agent a realistic expectation of the response shape.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and then enumerates four useful aspects in a compact list format. There is no filler and every phrase adds distinct meaning.

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-only tool, the description is complete: it names the input, defines the output dimensions, and the schema handles validation. There is no output schema, but the description compensates by saying exactly what topics the response will describe.

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 schema fully documents the version parameter, including its enum values and an example. The description does not add much beyond the schema, but because schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Describe one OCPI version' and immediately lists the specific dimensions covered (credentials token encoding, sender/receiver split, modules, limits). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like list_ocpi_versions and compare_ocpi_versions by focusing on a single version's detailed profile.

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 makes the usage context clear: this is for a detailed explanation of exactly one OCPI version, not an overview of all versions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when this tool should not be used, but the scope is precise enough to guide an agent.

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