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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific output (platform and adapter versions), which is useful, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format or potential side effects, though none are expected for a version query.

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 concise sentence that delivers the essential information without any superfluous detail. It is front-loaded and directly to the point.

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 simple, parameterless version lookup tool with strong annotations, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, and no output schema or parameter details are necessary. The sibling tools do not overlap, so no additional disambiguation is required.

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 baseline score is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are required, and there is no parameter information needed beyond what the empty schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' The verb 'Show' and the specific resource (platform and adapter versions) make it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which serve different purposes.

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 conveys clear context for when to use the tool: whenever current version information is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the tool's narrow purpose, the usage context is self-evident.

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