Server version

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explains a subtle behavioral detail: there is no meta block because meta is a data-freshness contract and a version has no as_of or valid_until. This adds valuable context not available from annotations alone.

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 front-loaded, with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The subsequent sentences add relevant detail about what the version refers to and the absence of a meta block, with no redundancy or filler.

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, parameterless tool with an output schema and safe read-only annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, scope, and return behavior. It even explains why a typical data-freshness field is absent, making it complete for an agent.

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, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). The description correctly notes the absence of a meta block but doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and this description adequately addresses the tool's scope.

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: 'Get the deployed version of this MCP server (pse-edge-mcp).' It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling data tools by noting it returns the server's own release version, not PSE Edge data.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need the server's deployed version. It also clarifies that this is not for PSE Edge data, effectively excluding data-related use cases, and points to alternative sources (health endpoint, serverInfo) for the same value.

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