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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully disclose the safety profile. The description adds context about what versions are shown (MCP platform and adapter), which is useful beyond the structured annotations. However, it does not describe output format or any potential side effects, though given the hints, none are expected.

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, complete sentence that is immediately understandable and contains no extraneous words. It is perfectly concise while conveying the necessary information.

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?

For a simple version-information tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully captures what the tool does. The annotations complement it by declaring non-destructive, read-only behavior. No further details are necessary for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and no additional parameter information is required or provided.

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 clearly identifies the resource: current MCP platform and adapter versions. This is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or toolkit_info, though it could be more explicit about differentiating from toolkit_info.

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 (when version information is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use. Sibling tools like toolkit_info may also provide informational output, but no differentiation is mentioned, so the guidance is merely implied.

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