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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: it identifies the two version values returned and the operational purpose (drift detection across servers). It does not add much else, but the annotations carry that burden.

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 key statement is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the follow-up paragraph explains the values and the reason to call it. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary ('without going outside the MCP protocol' is filler), but every other sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return shapes, and annotations plus zero parameters leave little else to cover. What the tool reports and why an agent would call it are both stated, leaving no meaningful gap.

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 sets the baseline at 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify and it correctly avoids inventing input details.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get sota-mcp service version and upstream spec version') and names the two values returned (running PyPI version, api2 endpoint contract). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the siblings, but those tools (sota_spots, sota_alerts, etc.) cover unrelated domain data, so confusion is unlikely.

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?

It gives a clear use case: confirm fleet alignment across MCP deployments by comparing service_version and spec_version to detect drift. There are no exclusions or alternatives named, but for a zero-parameter version probe there is no competing tool to route away from.

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