pypi_get_version

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

Annotations fully cover the safety profile: read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds only the PyPI source and version-specific scope; it does not mention missing-version behavior, rate limits, or return details.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could be slightly more structured by naming the sibling it complements, but it is appropriately concise.

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 tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient for selection and invocation. It is less complete regarding what metadata is returned, but that gap is modest given the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description's phrasing maps naturally to package name and version but adds no format or matching semantics 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 verb and resource: get metadata for a specific version of a Python package from PyPI. The 'specific version' wording differentiates it somewhat from a general package lookup, but it does not explicitly name the sibling pypi_get_package.

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 when to use it: when metadata for one specific package version is needed. However, it provides no explicit exclusions, alternatives, or guidance about how this differs from pypi_get_package.

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