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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it reports both MCP platform and adapter versions, providing additional context about the output scope, but it does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as output format or side effects. With annotations covering safety, the description adds modest value.

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 of 8 words that immediately states the tool's action and target. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to the meaning.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and safety annotations already present, the description fully captures what the tool does. It states the exact information conveyed (MCP platform and adapter versions) and needs no further explanation for an agent to understand its functionality.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameter meaning. According to the rubric, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate for zero parameters, and the description does not introduce any parameter-related information because none exists.

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 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions' uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies a clear resource (MCP platform and adapter versions). This makes its purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, none of which claim to provide version information.

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 the tool (when version information is needed) but does not explicitly state usage conditions or alternatives. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of similarly functioning siblings, this implicit guidance is satisfactory though not explicit.

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