system_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It is a read-only retrieval tool and the description conveys this implicitly by being a 'get' operation. It discloses the tier semantics (blocking/recommended/ok/unknown), which tells the agent what kind of outcome values to expect. Does not explicitly state it's read-only/non-destructive, but the nature of a version-listing get tool makes this unambiguous, so a slight deduction from 5 is appropriate.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose first, then elaborates parameter-driven behavior. Every clause adds useful information with zero filler or redundancy. Excellent economy of words while conveying the full contract.

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 retrieval tool with only 2 optional, fully schema-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral variations (payload shape per platform, version-driven tier resolution). It does not describe the exact structure of the returned objects, but with no output schema the description cannot fully enumerate this; given the tool's modest complexity and 100% schema coverage, this is near-complete. Minor gap: no mention of the full (omitted-platform) payload's exact shape.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description's job is to add value beyond schema. It explains that `version` 'Drives the gate.tier field' and is 'Only honoured when platform is also supplied,' adding interaction semantics not present in the schema. It explains `platform` returns a flat `client` object. However, since the schema already documents each parameter comprehensively, the added value is incremental rather than transformative, warranting baseline-3 rather than higher.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Get backend version plus web and mobile latest+min versions and store URLs.' Distinguishes from siblings by describing the exact payload structure (backend version, per-platform web/mobile versions, store URLs). Contextually unique among a wide-ranging sibling set, clearly a version/health-info retrieval tool.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to supply `platform` (to get a flat `client` object) and when to add `version` (to get a resolved `gate.tier` instead of comparing yourself). Directly tells the agent it can pass `version` so it 'do[es] not have to compare versions yourself,' which is a strong usage directive. Clearly scoped vs sibling tools which handle different domains entirely.

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