payments_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the operation as a 'Get' but does not disclose the response format, whether any side effects occur, or what 'API version' will be returned. The behavior is only slightly clarified by the tool name and description.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no wasted text or redundant detail.

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 version-check operation, the description is nearly complete: an agent knows what action to take and on which module. It could be enhanced by noting the expected response format, but the absence of parameters and the simple nature of the tool reduce the need for more context.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description appropriately reflects this no-input design by making no parameter claims.

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 states the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'Payments (Platby) module API version', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also naturally fits the pattern of sibling version tools such as attendance_version, lessons_version, and courses_version, so an agent can infer the module being queried even without opening the schema.

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 description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternative version tools or other payment-related tools. It simply states what the tool does without explaining the expected context, such as needing to verify API compatibility before making other calls.

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