attendance_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'No auth required,' which is a meaningful operational trait. It does not mention the return format or confirm the operation is a non-mutating GET, but 'Get' and 'version' make the read-only nature reasonably clear. This is minimally sufficient.

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 description is two short sentences with no filler. The resource and action appear first, followed by the only behavioral note (no auth). Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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, no-output-schema version endpoint, the description captures the essential facts: what the tool returns (the service version) and the authentication requirement. It does not elaborate on response formatting or edge cases, but the low complexity makes that unnecessary. A slightly richer note on the return value would make it fully 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusion about arguments because there are none.

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 ('Get') and a clearly identified resource ('Edookit Attendance (Docházka) service version'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from other attendance data tools and from version endpoints of other modules, so an agent knows exactly what operation is exposed.

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?

The intended use is implicit from the name and description: call this tool to retrieve the Attendance service version. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention that no other version-check tool is needed for attendance. It is adequate but relies on the agent inferring the obvious.

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