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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds behavioral context by specifying 'current' versions and narrowing scope to MCP platform and adapter versions, which is useful beyond the annotation-only view. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 sentence, directly front-loaded with the action and object. Every word adds value, with no repetition of the name or unnecessary qualifiers. It is optimally concise.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. The only missing detail might be the return format, but for a version tool this is not a critical gap. The combination of description and annotations makes the tool's behavior fully predictable.

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 the input schema is fully covered at 100% and there is nothing for the description to add. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, this is appropriately scored as 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since none 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'show' and clearly identifies the resource: 'current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like toolkit_info, which would cover broader toolkit information. No confusion about what this tool does.

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 implies the tool is for checking version information, but it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like toolkit_info or state when to use this instead of alternatives. However, the tool's purpose is self-evident and there is little ambiguity in a version-checking context.

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