Check service version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'read-only, free, no parameters' largely restates structured data. The description still earns credit for disclosing the return shape (data.status, data.version) and for bounding expectations with 'does not measure data freshness', which annotations cannot express.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then routing guidance, then return shape and limitation. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information leads.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return contract itself (data.status = "ok", data.version). Combined with the routing guidance and the stated limitation, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 and the description confirms that ('no parameters'), matching the empty schema exactly. Baseline for a 0-param tool applies; there is nothing further to disambiguate.

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 and resource: check reachability of the Agents Trust API and read its deployed version. It also names what it is not (a data-freshness check), so an agent can separate it from recommend/inspect without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it — diagnose connection problems before retrying recommend or inspect — and explicitly excludes a neighboring concern (data freshness). Both the trigger and the non-use case are stated, not inferred.

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