Get Version Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that — that it reports the running PyPI version and the current NOAA SWPC endpoint revision, and that comparison can be done inside the MCP protocol — which helps an agent understand the tool's operational role.

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-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then elaborates on return values and usage. Slightly expanded but each clause contributes; 'without going outside the MCP protocol' is a minor flourish but reinforces the self-contained comparison use case.

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, zero-parameter metadata tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and why an agent would call it. Complete enough that nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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. Baseline 4 for a no-parameter tool is appropriate; no parameter semantics are needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieving solar-mcp service version and the upstream NOAA SWPC spec revision. The description names exactly what is returned (service_version, spec_version), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the data-fetching siblings (solar_conditions, solar_forecast, etc.).

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?

Provides a clear use case: confirming fleet alignment across deployments by comparing service_version and spec_version across servers to detect drift. There are no meaningful alternatives among siblings to exclude, so the absence of 'when-not-to-use' guidance is minor rather than a gap.

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