Get latest OCSF version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that only stable releases are returned and development versions (alpha, beta, rc) are excluded, which is not inferable from 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?

The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement, a bulleted list of use cases, and a brief note on filtering behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned (latest stable version), what is filtered out, and when to use it. This fully covers the agent's needs for selection and invocation.

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 the description need not explain parameter semantics. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return value rather than parameters.

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: 'Return the latest stable OCSF schema version.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ocsf_get_versions by emphasizing 'latest stable' and filtering out development versions.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'Get the current recommended OCSF version for new mappings', 'Ensure you're using up-to-date schema definitions', and 'Start OCSF mapping workflows'. It also notes what it filters out, implying that a different tool (e.g., ocsf_get_versions) should be used for all versions, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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