Get portal version / capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It does so by noting the tool returns version and about info and is meant for gating. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful purpose beyond what annotations state.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds necessary usage guidance. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description is sufficient for a zero-parameter, read-only info tool. It explains the use case (gating) and distinguishes from check_connection. It could mention what 'about info' contains, but that's minor. Overall, it's complete enough.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description adds no param semantics but none are needed. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; it doesn't lose points.

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 a specific action ('Fetch the portal version and about info') and clearly distinguishes it from check_connection by noting it gates version-specific endpoints. The resource is unambiguous and the tool's role is clear.

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 explicitly states when to use (gate version-specific endpoints) and when not to (to confirm connection, call check_connection instead). This gives the agent clear decision criteria and an alternative tool name.

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