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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly a safe read operation. The description adds the detail that it shows versions, which is consistent. Although the description doesn't add extra behavioral context like whether it requires authentication, the annotation coverage is sufficient and the tool is trivially safe.

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 sentence, highly concise, and front-loaded with the core action. Every word is useful, with no unnecessary filler.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, read-only operation), the description is complete enough. It aligns with annotations and clearly defines the tool's function. A fully comprehensive description might mention that it returns version strings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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, so the schema provides all necessary information. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description adequately covers the purpose.

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 what the tool does: it shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions. This is a specific verb ('show') plus resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'connect' by focusing on version information.

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 needing to check versions but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives. Since there are sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' that might also provide version-related information, the description could be more explicit about exclusivity, but the context is fairly clear.

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