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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully more than a bare read: it explains the canonical rule location, the required user-facing action when update_available is true, an explicit prohibition on writing a local copy, and the fallback role of rule_markdown for clients without the plugin. It stops short of explicitly labeling the call as a safe read-only operation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then return keys, then action guidance, then the critical 'never write a local copy' warning. The only mild redundancy is enumerating return keys, which the output schema already covers.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not restate returns, yet it does and also supplies post-call decision logic and a safety prohibition. For a single optional-parameter diagnostic tool this is nearly complete; the only gap is the absence of an explicit invocation trigger.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the sole parameter (installed_rule_version) is fully documented in the schema, including its origin and the omit-if-absent case. The description adds no further syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and two resources (server version and memory-rule version) plus the derived question of whether an update is needed. An agent immediately understands this is a diagnostic/version-read tool distinct from any sibling, since no other tool covers version reporting.

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?

It gives procedural guidance for interpreting results (if update_available, tell the user to update the teamshared plugin) and warns never to write a local rule copy, but it never states when an agent should call this tool versus not calling it. Usage is implied rather than framed as when/when-not.

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