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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond stating what it shows; it doesn't mention any side effects (likely none) or output specifics, but given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 is concise and front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place; there is zero waste.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with no parameters, rich annotations, and a clear description. The context is complete for the agent to understand its purpose and safety. The only minor gap is the lack of guidance on alternative tools, but given the simplicity, this is not a significant omission.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no need for parameter explanations. The description does not attempt to add parameter semantics, which is fine because none exist. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description fulfills that.

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 purpose: to show the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('versions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like toolkit_info or authenticate.

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 usage context—when the user needs version information—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention of when to use show_version instead of toolkit_info or report_bug, although the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer.

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