schema_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'Report' plus a zero-parameter schema reasonably conveys a side-effect-free informational read. It names exactly what is disclosed (server version, supported ledger schema version); finer points like caching or auth requirements are absent but low-risk for a version probe.

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 with zero filler, stating verb and both returned facts immediately.

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 no-arg informational tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it reports, with no hidden parameters or side effects to worry about. Return-value structure is covered by the output schema.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline applies; nothing in the schema needs compensating for. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there is none to add.

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?

Specific verb ('Report') plus two concrete resources: server version and supported evidence-ledger schema version. It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling (add_record, validate_ledger, etc.), though it does not name or contrast with any of them explicitly.

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?

No explicit when/when-not statements or alternatives. Usage is only implied — an agent infers this is the compatibility/version probe to call before or alongside ledger operations. No exclusions or ordering guidance is given.

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