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 agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—it doesn't mention what exactly is returned (e.g., format, structure) or any potential side effects. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate; the description adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.

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. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. 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, clear annotations), the description is complete enough. It states what the tool does, and the annotations cover safety. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify the exact format of the version output, but that is not critical for a simple version query. The description is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). 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 a 4 is appropriate.

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: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('versions'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' or 'get_resource_metadata' which might also provide version info but with different scopes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, so it's not a 5.

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 it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the large sibling list, there is no mention of alternatives like 'toolkit_info' or 'get_resource_metadata' that might also provide version-related information. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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