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 the specific content (MCP platform and adapter versions) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as output format, potential errors, or whether it requires authentication. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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. There is zero waste, and it is appropriately front-loaded. It earns its place perfectly.

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, and clear annotations), the description is complete enough. It tells the agent exactly what information will be returned (versions). It could mention whether the output is a string or structured data, but with no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values in detail. The tool is simple, and the description covers the essentials.

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% (since there are no properties). The description adds meaning by specifying what versions are shown (MCP platform and adapter), which is useful context beyond the empty schema. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that baseline.

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: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('versions'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' by specifying the exact content (MCP platform and adapter versions). However, it could be slightly more explicit about what 'adapter' refers to in this context.

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 usage: when you need to check version information. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'toolkit_info' or 'google_ads_status'. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives.

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