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 safety profile is well established. The description adds the specific content of what is shown ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations, so a baseline 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 directly states the tool's function. It is fully front-loaded with no filler words, earning every character. Perfectly appropriate for a simple tool.

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 tool is extremely simple with no parameters, no output schema, and unambiguous purpose. The description fully covers what the tool does, and given the low complexity, no additional context is needed. The provided annotations further enrich the context, making this complete.

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, so there is nothing to explain. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description does not need to add parameter meanings. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description already communicates the tool's purpose without param details.

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: showing the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies the resource (versions). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'connect', which serve different purposes.

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 tool is a simple informational read-only operation with no parameters, so complex usage guidance is unnecessary. The description implies it is used to retrieve version information, and there are no exclusions or alternatives to compare. The context is clear, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it, which is acceptable for such a trivial tool.

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