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 tool's safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., error handling or fallback behavior), but it is fully consistent with the annotations, warranting a mid-range score.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant language. It is perfectly sized for a tool with no parameters and a straightforward purpose.

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 version-retrieval tool with zero parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides complete context. There is nothing missing or ambiguous.

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?

With zero parameters, the description does not need to explain any. The schema fully covers the empty parameter space, so the baseline score of 4 is appropriate, even though the description itself provides no extra parameter information.

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 names the exact resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It easily distinguishes this from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, 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 implies when to use the tool (whenever version information is needed) but provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternatives. For such a simple tool, this is acceptable but lacks the explicit guidance that would merit a higher score.

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