get_peerdb_version

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

The annotations already disclose that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds that the tool checks gateway connectivity, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not provide additional details such as failure modes or rate limits.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the two things the tool does.

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 that the tool has no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could be slightly improved by explicitly noting that it is a diagnostic ping, but the essential context is present.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately does not attempt to document nonexistent parameters.

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 gives specific verbs and resources: it checks gateway connectivity and reports the PeerDB version. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling pipeline and peer management tools.

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 implies usage for checking connectivity or retrieving the PeerDB version, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when it should be avoided. The context is inferable but not explicit.

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