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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns both MCP platform and adapter versions, which provides behavioral context about the tool's output. This goes beyond the annotations by specifying what kind of version information is returned.

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 perfectly compact and front-loads the action ('Show') and object ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), leaving no room for ambiguity.

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?

This zero-parameter tool with no output schema requires minimal description. The description fully covers what it does: it shows versions. There is no missing information for a user to understand when to invoke this tool.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no additional parameter documentation needed since there are none. The score matches the baseline expectation.

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-resource pair: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It clearly distinguishes this as a version query tool, which is distinct from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect'. The purpose is unambiguous and complete.

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?

For a simple read-only versioning tool, there is no need for explicit alternatives or conditions. The description implies its use case (checking versions), and given the tool's trivial nature, no further guidance is necessary. The score reflects that while no exclusions are stated, none are needed here.

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