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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with a safe, read-only operation by using 'Show'. The description adds the specific detail that both platform and adapter versions are returned, which is not fully captured in annotations. It offers some additive context beyond the structured data.

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 fluff. Every word earns its place, and it instantly conveys the tool's function. Properly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 version-querying tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent exactly what to expect without needing extra details like return format. The tool is straightforward, and the description covers everything needed for correct invocation.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none, and the schema already covers everything with no parameters. No additional semantic information is required here.

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 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions' clearly states the action (show) and the specific resource (current MCP platform and adapter versions). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect', which serve different purposes. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 when to use the tool—whenever a user needs to check the versions of the MCP platform and adapters. There are no alternatives or exclusions, but the simplicity of the tool makes the usage obvious. It provides a clear context without needing explicit 'when not to use' guidance, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives.

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