Get storage schema version

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is free. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it discloses the partial-failure mode ('returns null for the SQL version if it cannot be read') and explicitly rules out the misreading that this initiates a migration.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is reported, then usage, then the null edge case and the negative clarification. No sentence is redundant and the last sentence prevents a plausible misfire.

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 no output schema, the description must sketch the return value, and it does: a set of version numbers plus supported read ranges, with null as the SQL-version sentinel. It stops short of describing the shape of the read-range values or what an out-of-range result means for the caller, which keeps it just below complete.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a pure no-argument call rather than hinting at options that don't exist.

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 (Report) and a precisely enumerated resource (local SQL migration, item and sidecar schema versions plus supported read ranges). It also draws a hard boundary against the sibling get_uoink_health, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('use before interpreting older saved records in an integration') and routes the adjacent diagnostic need to get_uoink_health. What's missing is any explicit statement of when this check can be skipped (e.g. current records, fresh installs), so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not coverage.

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