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

The description is consistent with the annotations: read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. It adds a little specificity by saying the report covers both platform and adapter versions, but it does not describe output format, potential errors, or other behavioral details. The annotations already cover the core safety profile, so this is adequate but not rich.

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 that says exactly what the tool does with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and every word adds 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 version reporting tool, the description is complete. There are no prerequisites, side effects, or input concerns to disclose, and the annotations already confirm the safe read-only nature of the operation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter ambiguity exists and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 a clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It also distinguishes this from the calculation, authentication, and marketplace sibling tools, which have visibly 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 intended use is clear: obtain the current MCP platform and adapter version information. There is no explicit mention of alternatives or exclusions, but the tool is simple enough that the use case is self-evident from the description.

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