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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal context about what information is shown (platform and adapter versions) but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or response format. With annotations providing the core safety information, the description adds some value but not extensive transparency.

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 clear sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easily digestible. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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-checking tool with no parameters, no output schema, and safety annotations, the description is adequately complete. It conveys what the tool shows, and since there are no params or side effects, nothing else is strictly needed. However, it could hint at the return type or typical usage patterns, but given the simplicity, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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%. According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't, so this score reflects the minimal requirement.

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 exact purpose: to show the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), making it distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where checking versions is necessary, nor does it reference sibling tools or exclusions. A simple statement of purpose without contextual use cases warrants a low score.

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