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

The annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive behavior, and the description aligns with that ('Show' implies no side effects). No additional behavioral context is provided, but the annotations cover the essential safety profile.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and immediately conveys the function.

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 getter, the description is complete. It specifies exactly what versions are shown (MCP platform and adapter), so the user knows what to expect. No output schema is provided, but the description sufficiently sets expectations.

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 no parameters, so the schema is fully covered. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameter semantics, but it also doesn't add any extra context (e.g., optional flags). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: showing the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or connect by focusing on version 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?

The description implies usage when version information is needed but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There are no competing tools for this specific task, but explicit guidance on when to invoke it (e.g., 'when you need to check version compatibility') is missing.

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