d_check_last_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds that the return value is a version string and that lookups target official registries, which is valuable given the absence of an output schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. The long ecosystem list earns its place by defining the tool's scope and the package registries it supports.

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?

This is a simple read-only lookup tool. Annotations cover side effects, the schema covers all parameters, and the description states the return value, so an agent has what it needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both package and ecosystem parameters are already described in the schema, including the ecosystem enum. The description reinforces the supported ecosystems but does not add meaningfully beyond the schema.

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 action ('Get the latest version'), a clear object ('library/package'), and a source ('official registry'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like a_semantic_search and f_get_status, which serve unrelated purposes.

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The phrase 'help you avoid using outdated dependencies' gives a concrete use case for when to call this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools are all unrelated in scope, so no exclusion is really needed.

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