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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side-effect behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating what it shows, but it does not contradict annotations. With strong annotations, this is acceptable, though minimal extra context is provided.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It immediately communicates the action and object, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple, has no parameters, and annotations fully cover safety semantics. The description explains what it does without needing to detail output format (though no output schema exists, the output is self-evident). It is complete for its simplicity, though it could optionally mention that it returns version strings.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying the exact content shown (platform and adapter versions), which is not present in the schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that standard.

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 resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like authenticate or connect. It precisely states what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 the tool is for retrieving version information but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions are mentioned, and the context is clear from the verb and resource, but it lacks explicit usage direction.

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