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

The description discloses that the tool always returns a per-operation routing plan with key fields (version, endpoint, auth, example) and that it will ask clarifying questions when information is missing. This adds meaningful context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, and there is no contradiction.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the output format and interaction behavior. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no input schema, no output schema), the description fully covers its purpose, output (routing plan with version, endpoint, auth, example), and behavior (asking clarifying questions). It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's role among siblings.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not repeat schema details, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly states the tool's function: determine which Kudosity API version to use per operation. It uses specific verbs and resources ("Determine which Kudosity API version") and distinguishes from siblings like execute-request by focusing on planning rather than execution.

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 provides context on when to use it: when the user wants to know which API version to use for an operation, based on action and auth method. It also instructs to ask clarifying questions if info is missing. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the unique focus implies the intended use case.

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