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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by specifying exactly what version information is shown (platform and adapter), which is not redundant with annotations. No contradictions detected.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No filler or unnecessary details. 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 zero parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description fully covers what the tool does. It is complete for a simple version-query tool, providing enough context that an agent can confidently call it without ambiguity.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none. Baseline is 4 due to no parameter requirements; the description adds appropriate clarity about the value returned.

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 a clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the exact scope (MCP platform and adapters), which none of the siblings (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, toolkit_info, contas_light_download_ocr_consultar) appear to cover.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is self-explanatory. For a version-info tool, usage is inherently obvious and safe to call anytime. Lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, but the context of a version query is clear.

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