api_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and adds the debugging context, but it does not disclose what exactly is returned (e.g., version number format) or whether it incurs rate limits. Acceptable but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers all essential information with no filler. It names the action, the target resource, and the practical use case efficiently.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is sufficient: it states what the tool does and why to use it. It could be improved by specifying the expected return value (e.g., version string), but overall it is complete enough for its simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description does not attempt to add irrelevant detail. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current Adzuna API version'). It stands apart from sibling data-retrieval tools by identifying itself as a meta/debugging endpoint.

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 notes the tool is 'useful for debugging connectivity/auth', providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but none of the sibling tools serve this purpose, so this guidance is adequate.

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