Get Version Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact return payload (service_name, service_version, spec_version), which is useful, but never states that this is a side-effect-free read, whether authentication is needed, or how it relates to the sibling source_info tool. Adequate but thin for an annotation-free tool.

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?

Front-loaded with one crisp sentence stating what is returned, followed by a short field list. The Returns block duplicates information already present in the output schema, which is minor redundancy, but nothing is bloated or buried.

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, side-effect-free introspection tool backed by an output schema, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly — the agent knows what it gets back and needs no argument details. The only non-essential gap is sibling differentiation, which does not affect correct invocation.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

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 and resource — reporting the service version and the IARU list edition — which is clearly distinct from the data-retrieval siblings (lookup, search, codes_for, valid_on). It stops short of distinguishing itself from itu_zones_source_info, the one sibling that could plausibly overlap in scope.

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 nature of the tool (version/edition reporting) signals a diagnostic or compatibility-check purpose, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it, nor any differentiation from itu_zones_source_info. An agent can infer the context but is given no routing guidance.

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