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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds value by listing the exact return fields (build_sha, schema_version, schema_hash, archive_revision, tool_count, generated_at, server_environment), giving the agent a concrete sense of what the response contains and how to interpret schema_hash mismatches.

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?

Single dense sentence plus a use-case example. Every clause earns its place: the field enumeration establishes what the call returns, and the conditional scenario explains deployment troubleshooting. No filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with a rich output schema and readOnly annotation. The description fully covers what it returns, when to use it, and how to interpret results. Nothing meaningful is missing for a tool of this simplicity.

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 there is nothing for the description to document about parameter semantics. The schema coverage is 100% trivially (empty properties). The description appropriately focuses on the diagnostic value rather than parameters; the 0-param baseline of 4 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 specific verb+resource ('zero-argument diagnostic call returns exactly what build is live right now') and enumerates the exact returned fields. It clearly distinguishes itself as a diagnostic/version-check tool, unlike the sibling tools which are all domain-specific functions.

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?

Provides an explicit when-to-use scenario: 'if a tool you expect (like house_specify) seems to be missing, call this first'. It also gives the interpretative guidance (schema_hash comparison, stale cache vs real gap) that tells the agent exactly how to act on the result. No alternatives are named explicitly but the diagnostic-use context is unambiguous.

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