mfds_latest_version

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable context: the tool auto-estimates the current version, confidence levels, and warns about low confidence or unknown status requiring manual verification.

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?

Description is very concise: action stated first, return fields listed, then a warning. No wasted words. Well-structured for easy scanning.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are documented. The description covers primary behavior, confidence estimation, version history, and verification warning. It lacks mention of domain parameter handling and error conditions, but overall adequately complete.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It provides context for 'title_or_topic' (주제/제목) but does not explain the optional 'domain' parameter. Missing parameter semantics reduce clarity for the agent.

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 clearly states the tool returns the current guideline candidate with evidence and confidence, plus version history, based on a subject/title. It distinguishes this from siblings like mfds_version_history (which returns full history) and mfds_search_guidelines.

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 when needing the latest version with confidence assessment, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like mfds_get_document or mfds_search_guidelines.

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