Get OpenSMM capabilities

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful disclosure that the returned data includes supported commands and payment methods, which hints at a capability-negotiation endpoint, but it says nothing about auth requirements, whether the data is cached, or how it relates to catalog versioning.

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 short sentence with no filler and the key fields front-loaded. It reads as a fragment rather than a complete statement, which slightly weakens front-loading of intent, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately compensates by enumerating the four returned fields, which is the essential information. However, for a zero-param discovery endpoint that anchors a client's entire interaction with the gateway, it omits when the call is expected and what the agent should do with the results.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The schema is empty and fully documented by definition.

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 names a specific resource set (protocol version, supported commands, payment methods, catalog version) for a clearly scoped gateway, which no sibling tool covers. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'retrieves'), but the noun phrase is unambiguous about what data the tool exposes.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call it at session start, before placing orders, or to verify protocol compatibility. No alternatives or exclusions are named, and the agent must infer the discovery role from the field list alone.

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