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

The annotations already disclose the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as what happens on failure or the format of the version output. It simply restates the tool's action without adding value beyond the 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, clear sentence that conveys exactly what the tool does with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is optimally concise and front-loaded.

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 tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It fully explains the tool's purpose without needing to detail parameters, return formats, or edge cases. There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description has no need to explain parameters, and it doesn't attempt to, which is appropriate given the schema has no properties.

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.' It uses a specific verb ('show') and a specific resource (versions), and this distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which relate to versioning.

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 purpose is unambiguous and there are no sibling tools that could be confused with this one, so the context is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use or not use the tool, nor does it mention any alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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