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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the specific scope (platform and adapter versions) and implies it returns current values. It doesn't mention return format or any additional behavior, but with strong annotations this is acceptable.

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 sentence, 10 words, states the essence without fluff. The description is front-loaded and efficient.

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 version-query tool with no parameters and strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the one-line description fully covers what the tool does. No output schema is needed for such a straightforward informational call.

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, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description doesn't 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 resource 'MCP platform and adapter versions', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect. It precisely states what the tool does.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but as a simple version query its purpose is self-evident. It doesn't mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough for basic retrieval tasks.

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