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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which already declare the safety profile. The description adds that it provides version information, which is consistent with annotations. It doesn't add much behavioral detail beyond the annotations, but given annotations cover safety, the description is adequate. No contradiction; it reinforces the read-only nature.

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, concise sentence that perfectly captures the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

Given the simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It clearly states what it does, and with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is sufficient for an agent to know when to use it.

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 baseline is 4. The description appropriately mentions that it shows versions, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool. No additional parameter information is needed.

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 function: showing the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies the resource (platform and adapter versions), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'marketplace' or 'toolkit_info'. However, it could be more explicit about the distinction from 'toolkit_info' which might also display version-like information, but the description is clear enough for a version-specific query.

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 this tool (when you need to check the current versions of the platform and adapters). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but given the sibling tools, it's distinct enough. No explicit guidance on context is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the purpose.

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