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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the detail that a summary of what's included is returned, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe the return structure or any limitations, which is acceptable given the simple nature of the tool.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately short for a zero-parameter tool.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. It identifies the resource (versions) and the summary aspect. However, it could clarify what 'GodPrompt content' refers to, and there is no mention of how versions are presented (e.g., plain text, JSON). Given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete but not exhaustive.

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 schema fully covers parameter documentation. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly does not attempt to explain parameters since there are none. It adds no parameter-specific meaning, which 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 ('Returns') and resource ('GodPrompt content and MCP server versions') and clearly differentiates from sibling getter tools by focusing on version information. The title 'Get GodPrompt versions' reinforces this, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling getter tools (e.g., get_god_prompt, get_protocols). It does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer that this is for version checks.

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