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

The description's 'Show' wording aligns with the annotations readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a non-mutating, repeatable operation. It also adds specific detail about what is shown—platform and adapter versions—rather than merely restating the tool name.

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, front-loaded sentence that contains only the necessary information. It avoids filler, jargon, or redundant wording while fully stating the tool's function.

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, read-only version tool, the description is complete enough. It clearly states what will be reported without needing an output schema; the simplicity and context provided are fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output's subject matter.

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 the specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This precisely differentiates the tool from siblings like authenticate, connect, or marketplace, which serve other 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 description makes the tool's context clear: call it when you need to know the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps with version reporting, so the usage intent is unambiguous.

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