get_latest_version

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond these: 'cheapest call' signals low cost, and the RETURNS line discloses the exact output shape ({latest, deprecated, published_at}). No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences front-load the core functionality and include a use case, alternative, and return format. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it states the result format, when to use it, and what not to use it for. The annotations cover safety traits, and the low complexity means no further behavioral details are needed.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description provides no parameter-level guidance. It does not explain what ecosystem or package mean, nor give examples or format expectations, leaving the schema's raw types and enum as the only source. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool returns the latest published version and deprecation flag, with a clear scope ('only a version string matters'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling check_package by noting it is the 'cheapest call' and specifying when to use which.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('USE WHEN: only a version string matters') and names an alternative tool for additional needs ('If you also need health/vulns use check_package'). This is a model example of usage differentiation.

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