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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds the useful detail that versions are 'current' and derived from the MCP platform and adapter, but it does not describe output format or possible error behavior.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It captures the tool's full purpose without forcing the agent to parse verbosity.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic version tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it identifies what is shown, the current MCP platform and adapter versions. There is no output schema, but the expected output is straightforward enough that the description is not misleading.

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 schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The no-parameter baseline of 4 applies because the description accurately aligns with an empty invocation.

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 clear verb ('Show') and identifies a specific resource: 'current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like toolkit_info, which is broader in scope.

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 the tool is for retrieving version information during diagnostics or compatibility checks, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Usage context is reasonable but not explicit.

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