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

The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The verb 'Show' correctly indicates a read-only operation, and no contradictions exist. Annotations already cover these aspects, so the description adds minimal but accurate context.

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 conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and directly to the point.

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?

The description is complete for its simplicity: it specifies what is shown (MCP platform and adapter versions) and implies no return format is needed. With no output schema and no parameters, the description fully covers the tool's function.

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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the rubric, zero parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description adds no extra parameter information, which is appropriate since none exist.

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 purpose: showing the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies the resource (versions), distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect.

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 usage (when you need version information) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. Since it's a simple query tool with no side effects, the context is sufficient, though it could explicitly mention 'use this when checking version compatibility or environment details.'

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