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 scope 'current' and specifies both platform and adapter versions, which gives a bit more context than the annotations alone. No contradiction with annotations.

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: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It front-loads the verb and resource, includes no filler, and every word carries meaning.

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, read-only tool with safety annotations, the description fully explains the tool's functionality. No output schema exists, but the return value (version numbers) is implicit from the description. All necessary context is provided for an agent to use it correctly.

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, and the input schema is an empty object, meaning schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not (and need not) mention parameters. Per the rule, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description adds no extra parameter info (none needed).

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 identifies the resource as 'MCP platform and adapter versions,' clearly indicating what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate, connect, and report_bug, and even from toolkit_info by specifying version info rather than general tool information.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like toolkit_info. However, the tool's purpose is self-evident for checking platform/adapter versions, so usage context is implied. The lack of explicit exclusion or alternative naming prevents a higher score.

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