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

The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already provide transparency about the tool's non-mutating and idempotent nature. The description aligns with this, and there are no additional side effects or requirements to disclose, so the description fully supports behavioral clarity.

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 conveys the necessary information without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action and target.

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 trivial nature (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It tells the user exactly what information will be retrieved, and there is no missing context that would hinder understanding or usage.

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 takes no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. The description correctly implies this by not mentioning any inputs, and the schema confirms zero parameters.

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 function: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. The verb 'show' and the specific resource 'versions' make it unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself 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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool (whenever version info is needed), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Given the simplicity of the tool and no apparent alternative, this is sufficient, though a brief note on when to call it would be ideal.

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