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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and the description adds no context beyond the core purpose. It does not contradict annotations, but it also discloses no additional behavioral details such as output format, auth requirements, or potential side effects. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states exactly what the tool does without any filler. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, simple informational purpose), the group is fully described by the one-sentence description. The annotations already provide the safety profile. There is no missing metadata or context that would materially affect usage.

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 per the scoring rules. The description adds nothing parameter-related, but there are no parameters to explain, and the schema is already complete.

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 with a specific verb ('Show') and a clear resource/customers ('the current version and adapter variants'). It is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like toolkit_info, so it falls short of a 5.

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 this tool should be used when you need version information, but it provides no explicit 'when-to-use' vs alternatives or exclusion criteria. Sibling tools (e.g., toolkit_info) might also seem relevant, and no guidance is given to differentiate, resulting in only a minimum viable score.

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