Get Version Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the clarification that the result includes the ephemeris series, and since an output schema exists, the return fields do not need further explanation. There is no disclosure of caching, cost, or side effects, but none are expected for a read-only version lookup.

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 zero filler, front-loading the verb and the two things returned. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with complete annotations and an output schema, the definition supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly. The only gap is the absence of any guidance on when in a workflow an agent should call it, which is a minor omission rather than a blocker.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The absence of parameters is consistent with the stated purpose of a simple metadata lookup.

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 gives a specific verb ("Get") and a specific resource ("eme-mcp's version and the ephemeris series it computes from"), so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools, but the sibling names (eme_calendar, eme_degradation, etc.) are domain computations that are clearly distinct from a version/provenance lookup.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is evidently a diagnostic/provenance lookup, but the description never states when to call it (e.g., before interpreting results, for reproducibility) or when it is unnecessary. No alternatives or exclusions are named. For a zero-parameter info tool the implied usage is fairly obvious, which keeps this at minimum-viable rather than worse.

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