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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and partially fulfills it by adding 'Free, unauthenticated,' which informs about credential requirements and cost. The verb 'report' implies read-only behavior, though it does not explicitly state 'no side effects' or mention rate limits, but for a simple diagnostic tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action label 'Diagnostic:' and a direct statement of what it reports. The second sentence adds a use case and access note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancies or filler.

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 has no parameters, has an output schema, and is a read-only diagnostic, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage context, and access constraints. It mentions the scope ('this service') and the ecosystem context ('DPYC ecosystem'), making it complete for an agent to select and invoke.

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 and the schema is empty, so no parameter explanation is needed. Per the baseline rule for 0 params, this scores 4. The description adds no parameter-related information, but none is required.

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 opens with 'Diagnostic:' and states 'report this service's software versions and runtime info,' using a specific verb ('report') and a clear resource ('this service's software versions and runtime info'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like network_versions by explicitly scoping to 'this service' rather than the network.

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 a concrete use case ('Use to verify deployment versions across the DPYC ecosystem') and mentions the free/unauthenticated access, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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