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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'List' wording is consistent with a read-only operation. The description adds some behavioral context by revealing that output includes version purpose and implemented modules, but it discloses no additional traits like pagination, result counts, or availability of versions.

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 one compact sentence that immediately states the action and resource and then adds the two key details the agent cares about: the purpose of each OCPI version and the implemented modules. No filler or repetition exists.

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 no-parameter list operation with a readOnlyHint annotation, the description gives enough context to know what the tool will return—all OCPI versions, their purposes, and modules — but omits any mention of result format or whether the list can be filtered. This is a very minor gap for a simple list call.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The schema confirms no inputs, and the description's focus on what is listed is sufficient.

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: 'List the OCPI versions ChargerDojo covers,' and adds the specific purpose of showing what each version is for and which modules are implemented. It is distinguishable from 'chargerdojo_get_ocpi_version' in implying an all-versions overview rather than a single version, though it does not explicitly name that distinction.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as chargerdojo_get_ocpi_version or chargerdojo_compare_ocpi_versions. The intended use is implied by the verbs ('list' vs. 'get'/'compare'), but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are stated.

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