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 clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it shows versions. It doesn't mention any side effects or additional behavior, but with strong annotations, the bar is lower. The description doesn't contradict annotations, so a 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 fully conveys the purpose. There is zero waste, and it is appropriately front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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, strong annotations), the description is complete enough. It states what versions are shown (MCP platform and adapter). It could potentially mention the format or how to interpret the output, but for a simple version tool, this is sufficient. The sibling 'toolkit_info' might suggest more context, but the description stands on its own.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously true). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description is clear about what it does, so this score is justified.

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 resource ('versions'), which is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'toolkit_info', which might also provide version information, so it loses a point for not differentiating.

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 this tool (when you need version info) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Given the sibling 'toolkit_info', there could be overlap, but no exclusions or comparisons are mentioned. This is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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