get_server_version

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the call reaches out to npm and why cache staleness matters, but never says what the result looks like (version string? boolean? diff?) or what happens if the npm lookup fails or the network is unavailable.

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 core purpose and remediation are front-loaded and efficient, but the closing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' is unrelated promotional filler that does not help an agent decide to call this tool and dilutes the signal.

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 simple diagnostic tool this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should at least sketch the return shape and note the external npm dependency/failure mode. As written the agent knows when to call it but not what it will get back.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 the running MCP server version and compare it against the latest npm-published version. No sibling tool overlaps with this, and the two-part behavior (local version + remote comparison) is spelled out rather than implied.

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 names the triggering condition ('to detect if you're running a stale cached version (common with npx)') and gives concrete remediation steps for the outdated case. There are no real alternatives among siblings, so the absence of exclusions is not a meaningful gap.

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